KILAUEA POINT NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION 

SYSTEMS STUDY 

FINAL REPORT 

Conducted on behalf of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

By the U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Highway Administration 

Central Federal Lands Highway Division 

Prepared By: 

Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc. 

September 2006 
KILAUEA POINT NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION 

SYSTEMS STUDY 

FINAL REPORT 

Contract No. DTFH68-02-D-00001 

Task Order No. DTFH68-05-T-00044

 
Parsons Brinckerhoff i KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ........................................................................................... 1

Summary of Key Findings................................................................................. 4

Recommendations Based on Findings to Date................................................. 6

Short-Term Recommendations (1- 5 years)...................................................... 6

Medium-Term Recommendations (6-10 years)................................................. 8

Long-Term Recommendations (11-20 years) ................................................... 8

KPNWR Transportation-Related Issues to be Resolved and Next Steps ......... 9

Introduction and Background ......................................................................... 13

KPNWR Property and Geography .................................................................. 14

Transportation Issues ..................................................................................... 17

Purpose and Need for Action.......................................................................... 21

Completed Reports and Work Conducted To Date......................................... 22

Traffic, Visitor, and Parking Counts Study (TVP Study) .............................. 23

Visitor and Community Surveys .................................................................. 24

Refuge Visitor Projections Report (RVP)..................................................... 25

Kilauea Town Planning Context: Community Issues ................................... 27

Visitor Projections Summary........................................................................... 33

Conceptual Transportation Alternatives ........................................................ 39

Alternative 1: No-Build ................................................................................... 39

Alternative 2: Minor Improvements, Transportation System 

Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM).......... 40

Alternative 3: Moderate Improvements to Increase Capacity......................... 40

Alternative 4: Voluntary Shuttle with Private Vehicle Access ......................... 41

Alternative 5: Access by Mandatory Shuttle Only .......................................... 42

Estimating Future Parking Demand................................................................ 44

Existing Conditions and Future Demand for Parking ...................................... 44

Effect of each Conceptual Transportation Alternative on Projected 

Demand for Parking ........................................................................................ 48

Alternative 1: No-Build................................................................................ 48

Alternative 2: Minor Improvements, Transportation Systems 

Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ...... 48

Alternative 3: Moderate Improvements to Increase Capacity ...................... 49

Alternative 4: Voluntary Shuttle with Private Vehicle Access...................... 50

Alternative 5: Access by Mandatory Shuttle Only....................................... 51

Overlook Parking......................................................................................... 52

Estimating Transit Demand ............................................................................. 53

Considerations for Estimating Transit Demand............................................... 53

Transit Experience in the National Park System ......................................... 53

Impact of Increased Entry Fee on Visitation (to pay for Transit).................. 55

Methods to Encourage Transit Ridership at KPNWR .................................. 56

Peak Season vs. Year-Round Transit Service ............................................ 56

Estimating Transit Demand at KPNWR .......................................................... 57

Alternative 4: Voluntary Shuttle with Private Vehicle Access....................... 57
Parsons Brinckerhoff ii KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Alternative 5: Access by Mandatory Shuttle Only....................................... 60

Transit Service Operating Cost Estimates ..................................................... 66

Feasibility of Conceptual Transportation Alternatives at KPNWR............... 70

Alternative 1: No-Build................................................................................ 70

Alternative 2: Minor Improvements, Transportation Systems 

Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ...... 70

Alternative 3: Moderate Improvements to Increase Capacity ..................... 71

Alternative 4: Voluntary Shuttle with Private Vehicle Access...................... 71

Alternative 5: Access by Mandatory Shuttle Only....................................... 73

Summary of Key Findings ............................................................................... 78

Recommendations Based on Findings to Date ............................................. 80

Short-Term Recommendations (1- 5 years).................................................... 80

Medium-Term Recommendations (6-10 years)............................................... 81

Long-Term Recommendations (11-20 years) ................................................. 82

KPNWR Transportation-Related Issues to be Resolved and Next Steps .... 83

List of References ............................................................................................ 87

APPENDICES .................................................................................................... 88

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge and the Island of Kauai............. 2

Figure 2. Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge and the Town of Kilauea........... 3

Figure 3. Kilauea Point Traffic Circulation and Parking ...................................... 15

Figure 4. Kilauea Town Vicinity with Potential Bypass Road Alignments 

and Potential Transit Hub Sites................................................................... 30

Figure 5. Projected Demand for Parking at the Point – Peak Season ............... 46

Figure 6. Projected Demand for Parking at the Point – Off-Peak Season ......... 46

Figure 7. Projected Demand for Overlook Parking – Peak Season................... 47

Figure 8. Projected Demand for Overlook Parking – Off-Peak Season ............. 47

Figure 9. Likelihood of Visiting KPNWR versus Management Decisions........... 61

List of Tables 

Table 1. KPNWR Visitation Growth Forecasts (Annual) .................................... 35

Table 2. KPNWR Visitation Growth Forecasts (Daily, Peak Season) ................ 36

Table 3. KPNWR Visitation Growth Forecasts (Daily, Off-Peak Season) .......... 37

Table 4. KPNWR Peak Day to Annual Conversion Calculations ....................... 38

Table 5. Comparing Peak Season with Off-Peak Season Visitation.................. 38

Table 6. Summary of KPNWR Conceptual Transportation Alternatives ............ 43

Table 7. KPNWR Transit Demand Forecasts (Daily, Peak Season) 

Alternative 4 – Voluntary Shuttle Plus Vehicle Parking at the Point ........... 59

Table 8. KPNWR Transit Demand Forecasts (Daily, Off- Peak Season) 

Alternative 4 – Voluntary Shuttle Plus Vehicle Parking at the Point ........... 59
Parsons Brinckerhoff iii KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Table 9. KPNWR Transit Demand Forecasts (Annual) 

Alternative 4 – Voluntary Shuttle Plus Vehicle Parking at the Point ............ 59

Table 10. KPNWR Transit Demand Forecasts (Daily, Peak Season) 

Alternative 5 - Access by Shuttle Only ........................................................ 63

Table 11. KPNWR Transit Demand Forecasts (Daily, Off- Peak Season) 

Alternative 5 - Access by Shuttle Only ........................................................ 64

Table 12. KPNWR Transit Demand Forecasts (Annual) 

Alternative 5 - Access by Shuttle Only ........................................................ 65

Table 13. Sample Operating Costs per Bus – Owned and Operated 

by KPNWR (Low Cost Estimate) ................................................................. 67

Table 14. KPNWR Shuttle Bus System Cost Estimates (2005 Dollars)............. 69

Table 15. Transit Feasibility Matrix - 2010......................................................... 75

Table 16. Transit Feasibility Matrix - 2015......................................................... 76

Table 17. Transit Feasibility Matrix - 2025......................................................... 77

List of Photos 

Photo 1. View approaching the Refuge Overlook at the end of 

Kilauea (Lighthouse) Road.......................................................................... 16

Photo 2. View of Entrance Gate/Road at KPNWR from the Overlook ............... 17

Photo 3. Private vehicle accessing KPNWR via narrow entrance road ............. 18

Photo 4. Cars accommodated in grassy Overflow Parking Area, 

as directed by Refuge staff.......................................................................... 19

Photo 5. Refuge temporarily closed at entry gate when parking lots are full 

(view from Overlook Area)........................................................................... 20

Photo 6. Refuge visitors approaching new fee collection booth established 

on the Point in 2005 .................................................................................... 27

Photo 7. Visitors at the KPNWR Overlook (view from Kilauea Road)................ 52

Appendices 

Appendix A: Refuge Visitor Projections Report (RVP Report) 

Appendix B: Testimony by FWS on Kilauea Town Plan 

Appendix C: Conceptual Transportation Alternatives 

Appendix D: Site Plan Concepts and Sample Technologies 

Appendix E: Assumed Effect of Increased Entry Fee on Visitation 

Appendix F: Private Vendor Operating Costs 

Appendix G: Kilauea Town Plan – Bypass Road Options 
Parsons Brinckerhoff iv KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Acronyms used in this Final Report 

ATPPL Alternative Transportation for Parks and Public Lands 

ATS Alternative Transportation Systems 

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CE Categorical Exclusion 

CFLHD Central Federal Lands Highways Division (FHWA) 

DBEDT State of Hawaii, Department of Business, Economic 

Development and Tourism 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration (USDOT) 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

HDOT Hawaii Department of Transportation 

HRS Hawaii Revised Statute 

ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems 

KPNWR Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge (FWS) 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NPS National Park Service 

PASA Policy Analysis & Science Assistance Program (USGS) 

PB Parsons Brinckerhoff 

RVP Refuge Visitor Projections Report 

TDM Transportation Demand Management 

TSM Transportation Systems Management 

TVP Traffic, Visitor, and Parking Counts Study 

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 
Parsons Brinckerhoff v KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Purpose of This Final Report 

This Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge (KPNWR) Alternative Transportation 

Systems (ATS) Study Final Report summarizes and builds upon the findings and 

key elements of work conducted to date in support of the ATS Study, including 

coordination with the Kilauea Town Plan and Kauai General Plan Amendment 

planning process. This Final Report evaluates the feasibility of five conceptual 

transportation alternatives, four of which represent “improvements” to the existing 

transportation system serving the Refuge as defined through this ATS Study, 

including possible creation of a dedicated transit shuttle system. The fifth 

alternative is the “No-Build” scenario; and, all five alternatives discussed are 

essentially the same as those presented to the public in February 2005, with 

refinement of some details. 

As part of the feasibility analysis, this Final Report also estimates future parking 

demand and/or the use of transit by anticipated visitors to KPNWR, under each 

transportation alternative. In doing so, this effort forecasts changes in Refuge 

visitation for each alternative under consideration. Implications of seasonal 

variability of parking and transit demand, visitor and community perceptions, and 

overall operational feasibility issues are addressed. 

The information herein supports the first level screening effort to determine the 

feasibility of each transportation alternative identified to date. Information and 

analysis from this Final Report will assist in narrowing or refining alternatives to 

those that will be analyzed in greater detail during the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) phase of this project. Although all five alternatives currently 

under consideration will be carried forward into the NEPA phase of the ATS 

Study, it is anticipated that one or more will be screened out during the 

alternatives analysis process. 

The selection of a “preferred alternative” may be anticipated as part of the NEPA 

process, based on context and intensity of the social, economic, and 

environmental resource effects; subsequent to exploration of all identified and 

potentially viable alternatives, combination and/or phasing of alternatives. The 

preferred alternative may then be subject to further analyses, evaluations, and 

public scrutiny prior to potential confirmation under NEPA. The emerging 

preferred alternative shall be evaluated in context, relative to all identified 

alternatives, always including the No-Build scenario. It is anticipated that the 

proposed NEPA action for KPNWR would require the preparation of an 

Environmental Assessment (EA). The type of NEPA document to be prepared, 

however, will depend on the nature and complexity of the impacts to the social, 

economic, and environmental issues, once determined. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff vi KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Acknowledgements 

This Alternative Transportation Systems Study conducted for the Kilauea Point 

National Wildlife Refuge, has been a successful interagency collaboration, 

primarily made possible through the dedicated efforts of the ATS Study Team. 

Comprised of staff members from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

Federal Highway Administration, the Team also included research staff from the 

U.S. Geological Survey, and staff provided by the prime contractor. 

The expertise, sustained effort, and “esprit de corps” demonstrated by the 

members of the ATS Study team were greatly appreciated during this complex 

engagement; as was the assistance, coordination, and direction provided by the 

staff from Parsons Brinckerhoff. 

ATS Study Team: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Mr. Mike Hawkes, Mr. Michael Mitchell, 

Ms. Kathy Batha, Mr. Bob Dieli, and Mr. David Aplin (Former FWS). 

Federal Highway Administration, Central Federal Lands Highway Division: 

Mr. Michael Dotson, Ms. Susan Law, and Ms. Renee Sigel. 

U.S. Geological Survey, Policy Analysis and Science Assistance 

Researchers: Ms. Natalie Sexton, Dr. Lynne Koontz, and Dr. Shana Gillette. 

Parsons Brinckerhoff: Mr. Clyde Shimizu, Mr. Chuck Green, Mr. Mark Garrity, 

and Ms. Nami Ohtomo (Former PB). 

ATS Study - Peer Reviewers: Mr. Kevin Percival (NPS), Mr. Rick Cushing 

(CFLHD), and Mr. Dave Zanetell (CFLHD). 

Thanks to all individuals, other public and private stakeholders and the public at 

large, who contributed to this vital transportation planning endeavor. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 1 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Executive Summary 

Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge (KPNWR, Refuge), established in 1985, is a 203-

acre facility located on the north shore of the Island of Kauai (See Figure 1), and is part 

of the Kauai National Wildlife Refuge Complex managed by the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS). KPNWR is a popular destination for tourists with an estimated 

annual visitation of 215,000 in 2005. KPNWR is among the top five in public visitation 

for all national wildlife refuges, and is at the top in terms of revenue generated. The 

increasing popularity of KPNWR has led to transportation problems, including access 

and parking problems, congestion, and associated safety issues at the two main parking 

areas, the Point and the Overlook. Increasing traffic through Kilauea Town, generated 

in large part by visitation to the Refuge is also a concern (See Figure 2). Exacerbating 

the existing problems both on- and offsite, is the projection that KPNWR visitation will 

continue to grow, and by 2025 will be 22 to 55 percent higher than it is today. 

To address such transportation-based issues for the Refuge, FWS, with support from 

the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Central Federal Lands Highway Division 

(CFLHD) initiated an Alternative Transportation Systems (ATS) Study to explore 

alternatives to the existing transportation system that currently provides access to and 

circulation within KPNWR. The ATS Study effort has incorporated a series of 

investigations, including the Traffic, Visitor, and Parking Counts Study (TVP) and the 

Refuge Visitor Projection Report (RVP). This ATS Study Final Report summarizes 

issues raised during the planning process, provides an overview of the findings to date, 

and makes recommendations for future phases. 

This Final Report also summarizes related transportation studies conducted during this 

engagement, including public opinion surveys1

. It establishes the initial “purpose and 

need” for transportation improvements, and evaluates the feasibility of five conceptual 

transportation alternatives, including two that incorporate transit “shuttle” elements. 

This Final Report concludes that multiple alternatives (including transit alternatives) are 

feasible, discusses pros and cons of each alternative, the possible integration and/or 

phasing of alternatives, and recommends proceeding to the NEPA environmental 

evaluation phase of the ATS Study. Recommendations for short-, medium-, and longterm transportation improvements are included. This Final Report also identifies issues 

that have not been addressed to date and that should receive further analysis during the 

anticipated next phase of the Study.

 

1

 For example, the Visitor and Community Survey Results for Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge and 

Lighthouse: Completion Report, by the Policy Analysis & Science Assistance Program, US Geological 

Survey (USGS). 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 2 KP

September 2006 

Figure 1. Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge and the Island of Kaua
Parsons Brinckerhoff 3 KP

September 2006 

Figure 2. Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge and the Town of Kilaue
Parsons Brinckerhoff 4 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Five conceptual transportation alternatives for KPNWR have been 

developed to date: 

1. No-Build, which would involve no physical or operational change from 

today; 

2. Minor Improvements, Transportation System Management (TSM) 

and Transportation Demand Management (TDM), which would 

include some physical or operational changes to increase effective 

capacity through improved management of parking resources, or would 

redistribute demand to less busy times; 

3. Moderate Improvements to Increase Capacity, which could include 

physical improvements to increase capacity, additional parking and/or 

widening of the entrance road; 

4. Voluntary Shuttle Service with Private Vehicle Access, which would 

institute a shuttle system from a new offsite Hub facility while continuing 

to allow private vehicles onto the Refuge; and 

5. Mandatory Shuttle Service, which would prohibit public parking 

beyond the entry gate at KPNWR (at an area known as the Point) and 

requires all visitors to use a shuttle system from an offsite Hub facility. 

Although some aspects of the five alternatives listed above may not be desirable 

by the community or FWS, each has been preliminarily identified as feasible and 

will be subject to further analysis and potential screening during the anticipated 

NEPA phase. 

Summary of Key Findings 

The following is a summary of the key transportation system findings for 

Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge. 

1. Annual visitation to KPNWR is estimated at 215,000 in 2005, and is 

expected to increase to between 262,000 and 332,000 by 2025. 

2. The growing popularity of KPNWR is generating operational, access, and 

safety issues, both at the Refuge and in the nearby Kilauea Town. 

3. Roughly 20 to 25 percent of all traffic on Kilauea Road is headed to the 

Refuge, including the Overlook and/or the Point2

. 

4. By 2010, existing Refuge parking capacity will be approached routinely or 

exceeded (by an average of 10 spaces during the daily peak hour), under 

 

2

 Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, KPNWR Traffic Visitor and Parking Counts Study, p.8. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 5 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

a mid-range growth scenario during peak season (winter, spring, and 

summer). 

5. By 2015, daily parking demand will approach or exceed existing capacity 

at the Refuge (by an average of 14 spaces during the peak hour/peak 

season). This deficit condition will occur all day during the Refuge’s public 

hours of operation during the peak season, and for approximately one to 

two hours of the day during the off-peak season (fall). 

6. Five conceptual transportation alternatives were developed, analyzed, and 

given cursory evaluation: No-Build; Minor Improvements, Transportation 

System Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management 

(TDM); Moderate Improvements to Increase Capacity; Voluntary Shuttle 

Service with Private Vehicle Access; and, Mandatory Shuttle Service with 

no public parking at the Point. 

7. All five transportation alternatives were found to be economically feasible, 

based on preliminary analysis and certain specified parameters. 

8. Based on preliminary estimates, it would cost about $160,000 (low-cost 

estimate3

) to $360,000 (high-cost estimate4) per year to operate one 25-

passenger shuttle bus for KPNWR. 

9. Assuming development of a new offsite transit center “Hub” facility, 

providing visitors with convenient, ample parking; restrooms; ticket sales, 

and attractive, informative visitor services, it can be expected that a “free” 

(cost included in Refuge entry fee) voluntary shuttle system with guided 

narration (Alternative 4) would be used by about 10% - 20% of KPNWR 

visitors. 

10. With a voluntary shuttle system in place, it is estimated that 80% - 90% of 

visitors would still choose to drive to KPNWR rather than use the shuttle. 

11. Raising the current entry fee from $3 to $5, while adding a voluntary 

shuttle service with on-board guided narration, would discourage some 

visitors from entering due to increased cost, but would be attractive to 

others, resulting in no net change in visitor projections. 

12. If the Refuge entry fee is raised above $5, visitation will begin to drop, 

either with or without a shuttle system in operation. 

 

3

 The low-cost estimate assumes government operation, combined with grants by others to 

provide capital improvements such as vehicles, onsite improvements, and a Hub visitor and 

maintenance facility. 

4

 The high-cost estimate assumes contracting with a private company to provide turnkey 

operation. Capital improvements needed under this scenario, such as the offsite Hub visitor 

facility, are assumed to be provided with grants by others and are not included in the high-cost 

estimate. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 6 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

13. To provide enough additional revenue to operate a voluntary shuttle 

system (Alternative 4) using 14-passenger (or similar) vehicles in 2010, 

the Refuge entry fee would need to be raised from the current fee of $3 to 

$5, assuming the low-cost estimate for the provision of transit is valid, or 

raised to $7 under a high-cost estimate. 

14. A mandatory shuttle system with on-board narration (Alternative 5) to be 

used by all visitors, with no private vehicle access permitted into the 

Refuge, would reduce visitation by about 15% below projected demand. 

15. A mandatory shuttle bus system (Alternative 5), using 40-passenger 

vehicles, would be feasible in 2010 with an entry fee of $6 under the lowcost estimate, and $11 assuming the high-cost estimate. 

Recommendations Based on Findings to Date 

Short-Term Recommendations (1- 5 years) 

Based on findings to date, FWS management should implement the following 

transportation strategies in the short-term (1 to 5 years) to help relieve 

transportation problems at KPNWR. 

1. Seek/secure funding to initiate the next transportation planning, 

conceptual design, and environmental (NEPA) processing phase of the 

ATS Study efforts for KPNWR. Establish, evaluate, and confirm the 

preferred transportation alternative(s), combinations, and/or phasing of 

alternatives, which most comprehensively address/integrate the short-, 

medium-, and long-range transportation system needs for the Refuge. 

2. Immediately begin to implement low-cost transportation system 

management (TSM) and transportation demand management (TDM) 

strategies. These include updating visitor information available on the 

FWS/KPNWR web page, in published literature, and via phone 

message; to educate potential visitors about “the best times to visit” 

based on anticipated availability of parking and/or other considerations 

such as the scheduling of interpretive programs. If possible, monitor 

and record the level of success of each strategy as it is implemented. 

3. Ensure that the current onsite parking and internal circulation system 

configuration is most efficient. Properly identify non-paved, dedicated 

parking spaces (e.g., gravel area at the Point) to promote efficient and 

safer public parking. 

4. Develop and implement a formal monitoring program to track incidents 

when public demand for onsite parking exceeds supply. Document 

temporary road closures, required to prohibit additional public access 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 7 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

into the Refuge for limited periods of time on any given day, due to 

parking capacity issues.5 

5. Seek funding for “Intelligent Transportation System” (ITS) applications, 

specifically the design/installation of an aesthetically pleasing and 

context-sensitive electronic sign, to be placed on Kuhio Highway. 

Information to be provided to the public via such technology can be 

changed remotely, in real time, to direct potential Refuge visitors and/or 

to inform them of current conditions at the Refuge which may restrict 

access. Such “variable message” applications will prevent visitors from 

wasting time and resources driving to the Refuge if no parking is 

currently available. Conversely, it may encourage additional visitation 

when access to the Refuge is unrestricted. It will also diminish safety, 

access, and circulation problems at the Refuge; and will reduce roundtrip traffic (and associated noise and air quality impacts) in Kilauea 

Town. 

6. Pursue from the County of Kauai, fee-simple purchase (or other longterm conveyance) of all or a portion of the County’s parcel of land 

adjacent to the Overlook (west of Kilauea Road). This parcel is currently 

used informally for overflow visitor parking; and, control of this parcel by 

FWS will foster comprehensive management of the Overlook parking 

area, and may lead to a more successful ATS program, while enhancing 

the visitor experience. 

7. Develop a phased transportation plan for KPNWR that starts with 

implementing the low-cost techniques listed above, and creates “trigger 

points” (based on congestion levels at the Refuge) for moving toward 

more capital intensive access and transportation solutions. 

8. Based on the outcome of the anticipated NEPA phase of the Study, 

begin to pursue funding for potential medium- and long-term capital 

improvements that could include both onsite and/or offsite infrastructure 

improvements. 

9. Promote the “3C” planning process; i.e., to facilitate “continuous, 

collaborative, and cooperative” endeavors to inform and work with the 

Kilauea community, Kauai County, and other stakeholders including the 

public at large, to minimize adverse transportation impacts generated by 

the increasing popularity of KPNWR. 

10. Based on the outcome of the anticipated NEPA phase of the Study, 

pursue funding of a “demonstration project” to test the viability of transit 

applications for KPNWR; utilizing leased vehicles, over a limited period 

of time. 

 

5

 Refuge staff have recently begun this type of monitoring program. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 8 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

11. Fully document and analyze the utilization of transit, as currently 

provided by FWS during “special event days” held at KPNWR each 

year. 

Medium-Term Recommendations (6-10 years) 

The following transportation strategies are medium-term (6 to 10 years) 

recommendations for KPNWR, based on findings to date. 

1. Consider implementing more aggressive TSM and/or TDM strategies 

not already in place, such as installation of onsite parking meters or a 

pay station, and a visitor reservation system. 

2. Consider increasing KPNWR entry fees, and subsequently dedicating all 

or a portion of the additional revenue generated toward the 

implementation of transportation facilities determined to be preferred 

during the anticipated NEPA phase of the Study. 

3. Consider formalizing and expanding parking capacity on the parcel of 

land adjacent to the Overlook, to accommodate overflow parking when 

demand exceeds capacity at the Point and/or at the Overlook. 

4. If the preferred alternative includes a transit system, operating from an 

offsite location, pursue funding for construction of Hub facility and 

purchasing transit vehicles. 

5. Continue to work with the Kilauea community to minimize adverse 

transportation impacts related to increasing visitation demand at 

KPNWR. 

6. Continue to monitor and evaluate transportation programs for success. 

Long-Term Recommendations (11-20 years) 

The following transportation strategies are long-term (11 to 20 years) 

recommendations for KPNWR, based on findings to date: 

1. If the preferred alternative includes a transit option from an offsite 

location, and if this was not already done during the medium-term, 

construct Hub facility and move all visitor ticket sales (entry fees), transit 

and some general maintenance activities/storage, and the KPNWR book 

store to new location. 

2. If the preferred alternative includes a transit option from an offsite 

location, and if this was not already done during the medium-term, 

implement voluntary or mandatory shuttle system operations, based on 

current conditions. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 9 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

3. Continue to work with the Kilauea community to minimize adverse 

transportation impacts. 

4. Continue to monitor and evaluate transportation programs and address 

emerging issues to ensure ongoing success. 

KPNWR Transportation-Related Issues to be Resolved and Next Steps 

The following issues have been identified as needing further study and/or 

resolution, and should be addressed or completed during the next phase of 

study. 

1. Secure Funding for the next phase of ATS Project Planning/NEPA 

Processing and Preliminary Design. 

2. Determine Lead Agency/Cooperating Agency Status and Secure 

Contractual and Funding Agreements. 

3. Initiate NEPA Analyses and Processing, including Public Involvement. 

4. Reconfirm the Feasibility of all previously identified Transportation 

Alternatives. Identify any new alternatives that should be considered 

and confirm their feasibility. 

5. Coordinate Comprehensive Transportation Planning/Integration with the 

scheduled FWS Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) process. 

6. Coordinate with Community Plans and Local Partners: ATS plans and 

transportation strategies, including but not limited to the five 

Transportation Alternatives identified to date for KPNWR, should be 

consistent with the goals of the Kilauea Town Plan and other long-term 

planning efforts by Kauai County, Kauai Bus, Hawaii Department of 

Transportation (HDOT), FHWA, and other stakeholders. Interagency 

coordination and public involvement will be important to ensure success. 

7. Determine Potential Need for Participation in the Development of a 

Proposed Bypass Road: FWS and CFLHD are unable to make any 

commitments at this time about federal participation/funding in the 

potential development of a bypass road for Kilauea Town. Before NEPA 

environmental review documents can be completed, relative to KPNWR 

transportation issues (as is anticipated during the next transportation 

planning/NEPA processing phase); FWS should determine if a 

successful ATS strategy for KPNWR, specifically transit, is dependent 

upon the use of a bypass road. If so, it should subsequently be 

determined if the development of such transportation infrastructure 

improvements can/should be funded; and, how potential development 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 10 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

joint ventures (public-public and/or public-private), ongoing facility 

ownership, liability, and maintenance issues may be addressed. 

8. Determine Preferred Location and Impacts of Potential Transit Hub Site: 

If transit is determined to be a preferred alternative for KPNWR, explore 

the benefits, costs, and impacts of each potential hub site, and work with 

the community to determine the ideal location, considering the needs of 

the Refuge and the intent of the Kilauea Town Plan. 

9. Evaluate FWS Operational Preferences for a Potential Transit Shuttle 

System: FWS will need to examine various operational issues for a 

shuttle system, including parking and management policies, direct 

access to the Point by private commercial transit operators (under 

Alternative 5), and ticket vending options and locations, among others. 

10. Conduct a Traffic Study: A traffic study will be needed to evaluate the 

differing impacts on the local system, of all conceptual transportation 

alternatives under consideration. This study should include potential 

transit routes and stops, alternate Hub locations, and needed 

improvements to local roadways. 

11. Acquire Topographic Survey Data: A topographic survey will be needed 

to verify the engineering feasibility of potential improvements at 

KPNWR, such as vehicle access, entrance road widening, and 

expanding public facilities at the Overlook. 

12. Acquire Flora and Fauna Habitat Mapping: Mapping, available from 

FWS, would help determine where onsite construction/expansion at 

KPNWR is environmentally feasible. A formal Endangered Species Act 

“Section 7” consultation should be conducted by FWS specialists; to 

reconfirm the accuracy of mapped habitats, to assess potential impacts 

and/or to identify mitigation measures relative to endangered species 

from the potential development/intensification of transportation facilities 

at KPNWR. 

13. Update Refuge Visitor and Parking Counts: The last onsite counts were 

taken at the Refuge in 2003. Changes to the fee collection system, 

visitor use patterns, growth in the inter-island cruise ship industry, and 

general growth in visitations to Kauai, have all likely impacted KPNWR 

visitor patterns since 2003. 

14. Specify all Key FWS Management Objectives and Actions to be 

Proposed: For example, Refuge staff would like to move administrative 

and maintenance functions off of the Point, perhaps to the potential Hub 

site. This issue was not clearly addressed in the initial Purpose and 

Need Statement, as developed for the current transportation Study 

project. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 11 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

15. Refine the Purpose and Need Project Statement: The Purpose and 

Need statement should be refined at the start of the next planning/ 

environmental processing phase. 

16. Refine Transportation Alternatives Cost Estimates: Conduct detailed 

cost estimates for all viable alternatives, including combinations and/or 

phasing of compatible alternatives; to be developed to a level that is 

appropriate for the screening process, as conducted during the 

alternatives analysis task of the anticipated environmental phase of the 

ATS Study. 

17. Evaluate Transit Vehicle Types: If it is determined that transit is to be 

included in the preferred alternative “solution set,” conduct research on 

vehicles currently available; addressing attributes such as unit cost, 

capacity and size, reliability, aesthetics, visitor experience, legality, and 

applicability for the location and climate. Types of vehicles examined 

could include rubber-tired historic-replica trolleys, trams, electrically 

powered and/or alternative fuel vehicles. Specification of additional 

details/needs of the transit system will be required, which could affect 

cost and feasibility of transit options. 

18. Determine/Prepare the Appropriate Type of NEPA Environmental 

Review Document: Although preparation of a Categorical Exclusion 

(CE) may be sufficient for some of the potential minor transportation 

improvements at KPNWR, it seems more likely that preparation of an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) will be required, considering the full extent of the various 

alternatives. All germane social, economic, and environmental (“SEE”) 

considerations must be addressed. Because it is likely that both federal 

and state/county resources would be utilized, environmental 

documentation would need to be prepared in accordance with both the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and 

the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 343, the State’s 

environmental review law. Additional federal requirements, such as 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act, and other federal and/or state regulations, 

would apply. 

19. Conduct Public Outreach Activities: Public involvement meetings and/or 

hearings will be required if the Draft EA or EIS scoping and review 

processes are pursued. Other public forums may be advisable and/or 

required to obtain public input and to further develop each conceptual 

transportation alternative to be considered and processed under NEPA. 

20. Develop Conceptual Site Plans: Develop conceptual site plans and 

related architectural, engineering, and/or landscaping plans at an 

appropriate level of detail; in an effort to document and accommodate 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 12 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

the proposed transportation functions, sizes, aesthetics, and costs of 

each potential significant transportation facility improvement. 

21. Analyze Biological, Cultural, Historic, and Archaeological Impacts and 

Constraints at the Potential Transit Hub Sites, the Point, and Overlook: 

Resources at the Refuge will need to be addressed in the context of the 

EA or EIS. In addition, the following actions will also be needed: 

consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer and 

concurrence with Coastal Zone Management regulations. Other issues 

such as Hazardous Materials clearance and aesthetics and visual 

impact may need to be addressed. 

22. Consider how the individual Transportation Alternatives, their integration 

and/or phasing opportunities would affect the Visitor Experience at 

KPNWR. 

23. Establish Selection Criteria for Transportation Alternatives. 

24. Develop Phasing Plan for Improvements: The preferred alternative for 

KPNWR could be a phased approach that incorporates elements of 

several of the conceptual alternatives to be integrated and implemented 

in cohesive stages over time. In determining appropriate phases, 

"trigger points" should be developed to determine when to move into 

subsequent phases. Examples of trigger points include metrics of 

visitation, congestion, visitor comments/complaints, resource impacts, 

etc. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 13 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Introduction and Background 

Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge (KPNWR, the Refuge) is a 203-acre 

facility located on the north shore of the Island of Kauai (See Figure 1). KPNWR 

is part of the Kauai National Wildlife Refuge Complex, managed by the United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). KPNWR was established in 1985 for the 

following purposes: 

• To protect and enhance migratory seabird and endangered nene 

(Hawaiian goose) populations and their habitats; 

• To preserve and maintain the historical integrity of the area, including 

the Kilauea Lighthouse and support facilities; 

• To conduct interpretation and environmental education activities on 

Hawaiian wildlife, site history, and the refuge system; and 

• To protect and enhance native coastal plant communities. 

The rocky cliffs of the Refuge provide an excellent nesting and roosting habitat 

for native Hawaiian seabirds, making it one of the most important seabird nesting 

sites in the main Hawaiian Islands. Migratory birds such as the Pacific golden 

plover, seabirds such as the Laysan albatross, and the endangered nene 

(Hawaiian goose) are some of the wildlife that uses this Refuge. The nene, 

Hawaii's State Bird, was reintroduced on the Refuge in 1991, as part of a 

statewide recovery program. Wildlife habitat management at the Refuge 

includes opening and maintaining nesting areas for Laysan albatross and 

improving feeding habitat for nene. 

Kilauea Lighthouse is a designated historic property, built in 1913 as a 

navigational aid for commercial shipping between Hawaii and Asia. In 1976, the 

Coast Guard deactivated the lighthouse and replaced it with an automatic 

beacon. In 1979, the lighthouse, three lighthouse keepers’ houses, several 

outbuildings, and the surrounding 31 acres of land were placed on the National 

Register of Historic Places as an historic site. Today, this general area of the 

Refuge is referred to as the “Point.” 

Staff and community volunteers conduct onsite interpretation and environmental 

education activities at KPNWR. In accordance with the Refuge’s mission, 

emphasis is placed on public education, balanced with the need to protect 

wildlife, habitat, and historic properties. KPNWR is distinct within the National 

Wildlife Refuge System; as most Refuges do not attract such a high volume of 

visitors. In fact, KPNWR is among the top five Refuges throughout the nation in 

annual visitation. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 14 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Annual visitation in 2005 at KPNWR was estimated at 215,000,6 based on 

extrapolation of actual count data from July to December 2005. Visitation to the 

Refuge is linked to general visitation patterns on Kauai; it is estimated that 

approximately one-third of Kauai visitors also visit KPNWR (PB, January 2004). 

Native and endangered plant reintroduction and alien species removal are 

ongoing and expanding. Native Hawaiian coastal plants such as naupaka, ilima, 

hala, aheahea, akoko, and others have been restored on the Refuge. In 

addition, an endangered plant restoration program is giving species such as the 

rare alula a chance to survive in KPNWR's protected and managed environment. 

In addition to the stated purposes of KPNWR, the Refuge offers spectacular 

views of the north shore of Kauai, and it is a prime whale-watching location 

during the winter months. The waters immediately off its coast are the only 

portion of Kauai’s waters designated as part of the statewide Hawaii Islands 

Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary. Humpback whales, Hawaiian 

monk seals, and spinner dolphins can be observed here. 

Because KPNWR has so much to offer the public, parking is often insufficient at 

the Refuge, especially during peak visitation periods. At such times, FWS staff 

must be stationed to direct traffic and promote safety when the parking lot is 

congested. When visitation exceeds parking capacity, including reasonable 

overflow limits, FWS staff places a sign at the entrance gate to indicate that 

public entry into the Refuge is temporarily closed7

. Such overflow conditions not 

only prevent Refuge staff from conducting other key duties; but, also degrades 

the quality of wildlife habitat, negatively impacts the visitor experience, and 

undermines FWS’s ability to fulfill its mission of environmental education. 

In addition, all traffic accessing KPNWR must pass through Kilauea Town on the 

only road leading to the Refuge. This large amount of traffic (estimated to be 20-

25% of total traffic along Kilauea Road8) contributes to traffic congestion, noise, 

and safety issues on this small two-lane collector road through the Kilauea 

neighborhood. 

KPNWR Property and Geography 

There are two primary destinations for visitors to KPNWR. The fee portion of the 

Refuge, beyond the entry gate, is referred to in this Final Report as “the Point.” 

This access-controlled area is open to the public most days 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. and 

 

6

 Parsons Brinckerhoff, “Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge, Alternative Transportation 

Systems Study, Refuge Visitor Projections Report,” March 13, 2006, using fee payment data 

compiled by KPNWR staff. This estimate included visitation to the Refuge beyond a pay booth 

and does not include visitation to other publicly accessible portions of KPNWR, such as the 

scenic overlook at the entrance to the Refuge. Neither does the estimate include visitation on free 

days, when the Refuge often receives more than 1,000 visitors. 

7

 The Refuge’s sign states “Refuge is closed. Visitor capacity has been reached. Please return 

after ____[time].” 

8

 Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, KPNWR Traffic Visitor and Parking Counts Study, p.8. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 15 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

requires an entry fee of $3 per adult9. The much smaller Refuge overlook 

viewing area (referred to as “the Overlook”) is adjacent to the entry gate into the 

Point, at the terminus of Kilauea (Lighthouse) Road. Access to the Overlook is 

uncontrolled and open to the public at all times. The map in Figure 3 provides an 

overview of the Refuge areas. 

Figure 3. Kilauea Point Traffic Circulation and Parking 

 

9

 Those refuge visitors with passes, such as Golden Age, Golden Eagle, etc. are exempt from the 

fee, as are visitors under the age of 16. There are also four “free days” each year when the 

Refuge is open without charge. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 16 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

The Point and the Overlook are the main destinations for the vast majority of 

visitors to KPNWR, and are the primary areas of concern for Refuge visitor 

management and transportation planning. The Point and Overlook together 

comprise about 31 acres, or just 15 percent of the roughly 203 acres of Refuge 

property. The remainder of Refuge property, including Crater Hill, “Rock Quarry” 

beach, and other areas east of the Point are much less frequently visited. 

Access to these portions of the Refuge is difficult and/or or prohibited at times, 

and therefore not encouraged. Visitors to these “off the beaten path” areas tend 

to be local residents, like those who fish the Rock Quarry shoreline. 

Environmental education programs for school children are occasionally 

conducted on Crater Hill, but other than the reinstatement of the guided Crater 

Hill hikes, the Refuge has no plans to change access to and management of 

those areas in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the scope of this Final Report 

is limited to issues pertaining to the two main visitation areas, the Point and the 

Overlook.10

Photo 1. View approaching the Refuge Overlook at the end of Kilauea 

(Lighthouse) Road 

 

10 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is separately conducting an Environmental Assessment to 

determine the feasibility and effects of acquiring and managing important wildlife habitats as 

additions to KPNWR. However, those additional acquisition areas are beyond the scope of this 

Final Report. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 17 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Photo 2. View of Entrance Gate/Road at KPNWR from the Overlook 

Transportation Issues 

The only access to KPNWR is via Kilauea Road, also known as Kilauea 

Lighthouse Road (See Figures 2 and 3). The Refuge is located at the northern 

terminus of this road. Kilauea Road is a 2-mile-long County-owned facility 

connecting the Refuge via Kolo Road, to Kuhio Highway, the major roadway 

encircling most of Kauai Island. Both Kilauea Road and Kuhio Highway are part 

of the Federal Aid Highway System. 

Visitors on their way to and from the Refuge must pass through the middle of 

Kilauea Town. Residences, as well as commercial sites, line the sides of Kilauea 

Road. Roughly 20 to 25 percent of all traffic on Kilauea Road is headed to the 

Refuge – either the Point and/or the Overlook11. Community members have in 

the past commented on how this “Refuge traffic” may be negatively affecting 

Kilauea, in terms of traffic volume and/or speed, and changing the character of 

the town. 

Refer to the map in Figure 3 for areas described below. The scenic Overlook, 

which offers views down to the Point and out to the Pacific Ocean, is at the 

 

11 Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, KPNWR Traffic Visitor and Parking Counts Study, p.8. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 18 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

northern terminus of Kilauea Road. This road ends in a cul-de-sac (turnaround) 

where it provides access to the Refuge Entrance Road, as well as to a private 

driveway. The Overlook area encompasses roughly 1/8-acre of land, owned 

primarily by the Refuge and in part by the County of Kauai. Parking is limited at 

this location; six marked parking spaces are provided, so people may step out of 

their cars to enjoy a panoramic view of Kilauea Point and its environs, and to 

read interpretive signs. Some visitors (55-65%) stop at the Overlook before 

and/or after enjoying additional amenities at the Point. Others (35-45%) visit only 

the Overlook, without entering the Point area, either by choice or because the 

Refuge is closed/full at the time12. 

Steep topography, road alignment geometry and safety considerations both 

constrict and restrict vehicular access into the Point, beyond the entry gate at the 

Overlook. The only public access onto Kilauea Point is via a gated, narrow, 

winding, and steep entrance road, with access off of Kilauea Road at the 

Overlook. This two-way entrance road is 0.21 miles long and only 16 feet wide. 

Most Refuge visitors are tourists traveling in rented passenger vehicles, although 

some do arrive by taxi or tour company shuttle buses. Due to space constraints 

and limited sight-distances on the entry road, uncontrolled access of larger 

vehicles such as 25-passenger tour buses or larger school buses is currently 

prohibited. When school bus tours arrive and depart, it requires a significant 

commitment of FWS staff resources for access control, flagging and parking. 

Photo 3. Private vehicle accessing KPNWR via narrow entrance road 

 

12 Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, KPNWR Traffic Visitor and Parking Counts Study, 

p.16-17. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 19 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Pedestrian access to the Refuge is not permitted beyond the entry gate, while 

bicyclists are allowed to enter, although not encouraged. According to Refuge 

staff, widening the entrance road is not a desirable option, because protected 

bird and plant habitats lie directly adjacent to the entrance road and because of a 

potential impact to the National Historical Site. 

Once on the facility (inside the entry gate), parking at Kilauea Point is limited. 

There are two paved parking areas, the “upper” and “lower” lots that include two 

spaces designated for use by the disabled. Including the unpaved/unmarked 

gravel areas adjacent to the lower lot, these facilities can accommodate about 49 

vehicles total. A separate “grassy” area is used for parking only in extreme 

overflow conditions and can accommodate about 20 vehicles. Refuge staff 

prefers not to use this area, particularly during the winter rainy season when it 

becomes very soft and muddy, and because staff must be diverted from their 

regular duties to direct traffic. This grassy area also serves as endangered 

species habitat, as it is a nene feeding site. (See Figure 3 above, “Kilauea Point 

Traffic Circulation and Parking” and Photo 4 immediately below). 

Photo 4. Cars accommodated in grassy Overflow Parking Area, as directed by 

Refuge staff

When insufficient parking conditions develop during peak visitation periods at 

KPNWR, Refuge staff are forced to manually control traffic, including directing 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 20 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

visitors to park on grassy overflow areas. Such demands are frequent, and often 

divert FWS staff attention from other key Refuge duties. When the parking lots 

have reached capacity, even with the use of the overflow areas, the Refuge is 

temporarily closed at the entry gate, and potential visitors are advised via 

temporary signage to return at a later time13. 

Photo 5. Refuge temporarily closed at entry gate when parking lots are full 

(view from Overlook Area)

The increasing trend of more visitations to KPNWR is aggravating the existing 

traffic and parking conditions. As discussed later in this Final Report, Refuge 

visitation in the year 2025 is projected to range from 22 to 55 percent greater 

than in 2005, which was estimated at 215,000. 

In light of the problems elaborated above, Refuge staff identified a need to 

pursue potential improvements and to identify alternatives to the Refuge’s 

existing transportation facilities and procedures. 

 

13 Refuge staff have recently begun to track the times and days the Refuge gate is temporarily 

closed, which will soon provide a better understanding of the magnitude of the problem. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 21 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Purpose and Need for Action 

As described earlier, KPNWR has been experiencing increasing visitation, which 

has resulted in access and safety issues, parking shortages, visitor 

dissatisfaction, wasted staff time, and increased traffic through Kilauea Town. As 

part of the current planning process, and based on the work conducted to date 

under this ATS Study (See discussion below.), the ATS Team developed the 

following “Purpose and Need” statement for this phase of the study.14

The purpose of this project is to provide an improved transportation 

system that supports the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service objective to 

provide visitor access to Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge in a 

manner compatible with the purposes of the Refuge, consistent with 

the mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and sensitive to the 

needs of the local community. 

Annual visitation to Kilauea Point was estimated to be 215,000 in 2005. Parking, 

traffic circulation, access, and safety problems are evident, especially during 

peak seasons and at certain times of day. The desired transportation system 

improvements for KPNWR would accomplish, through 2025 (a 20-year planning 

horizon), the following: 

• Be safer, more convenient, and more efficient than existing access and 

parking conditions; 

• Complement the Refuge’s environmental conservation, educational, and 

interpretive programs; 

• Maintain a high-quality visitor experience; 

• Accommodate projected increases in Refuge visitation; 

• Minimize traffic impacts on Kilauea Town; and 

• Improve general information available to the public, including 

“wayfinding” assistance (directional signage) and real-time information 

regarding access to the Refuge, etc. 

Some Kilauea community members are concerned that FWS is trying to find 

ways to increase visitation, and turn KPNWR into a visitor attraction. However, 

KPNWR is already one of the top visitor attractions on Kauai; and, it is in the top 

five facilities for total annual visitation within the entire National Wildlife Refuge 

system. As seen in the Purpose and Need Statement above, KPNWR does not 

 

14 The Purpose and Need statement would be further refined during the proposed environmental 

documentation phase in order to comply with requirements of the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA). 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 22 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

seek to promote increased visitation, but is instead trying to be proactive in 

addressing expected visitation growth over time. While it is possible that 

transportation improvements at KPNWR may facilitate visitation, many of the 

strategies analyzed here would better distribute increased visitation, reducing 

peak demands over time. Transportation-related information technologies may 

also help to educate potential visitors about appropriate/convenient times and 

days to visit the Refuge; and/or may entice visitors into using more efficient travel 

modes that could reduce the number of vehicles traveling through Kilauea Town 

to the Refuge. 

While not as imperative as the qualities listed above, Refuge staff also plan to 

consider additional factors in defining and selecting any transportation system 

alternatives. FWS may need to consider other measures to control visitation and 

visitor activities at KPNWR, based on wildlife and habitat conservation needs. A 

desirable transportation solution would allow Refuge staff to control more easily 

the flow and volume of visitors on the Point. Refuge staff would also like to 

explore transportation options that would allow expanding wildlife and plant 

habitat on the Point. Reducing or eliminating visitor parking and/or other 

transportation-related activities on the Point is attractive for this reason, as is 

moving non-essential administrative and/or maintenance and storage facilities to 

an offsite location. 

Completed Reports and Work Conducted To Date 

FWS and Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD) commissioned the 

preparation of several reports for KPNWR, which are fully integrated and 

incorporated, directly or by reference into this ATS Study Final Report, including 

the following: 

• Traffic, Visitor, and Parking Study (TVP Study), by Parsons Brinckerhoff 

Quade and Douglas, Inc. (PB), January 2004 

• Visitor and Community Survey Results for Kilauea Point National 

Wildlife Refuge and Lighthouse: Completion Report, by the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS), Policy Analysis & Science Assistance 

Program (PASA), November 2005 

• Refuge Visitor Projections Report (RVP Report), by PB, March 2006 

These reports were finalized with input and reviews provided primarily by the 

“ATS Study Project Team”: FWS, CFLHD, USGS-PASA, and PB. All three 

reports are summarized below, and the most recent of these, the RVP Report, is 

included as Appendix A of this Final Report. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 23 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Traffic, Visitor, and Parking Counts Study (TVP Study)

Traffic, visitor, and parking data collected in March and August 2003, enabled the 

estimation of baseline conditions, which can be used to understand and project 

future access, congestion, and safety issues at KPNWR, and to help determine 

potential applications of a shuttle or transit system for the Refuge. The TVP 

Study also helped to identify existing and potential transportation constraints at 

KPNWR15. Specifically, the TVP Study made the following findings: 

• Peak times for the utilization of the KPNWR parking lots and for public 

visitations to KPNWR are between 10:00 a.m. (daily opening time) and 

2:00 p.m. every day. 

• The busiest times for the Overlook are 9:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. 

(immediately prior to the KPNWR opening time) and 4:00 p.m. to 4:30 

p.m. (immediately after the KPNWR closing time). 

• Visitations to KPNWR and to the Overlook appear to increase on the 

days that cruise ships dock at Nawiliwili Harbor in Lihue. The numbers 

and impact of cruise ship visitors at the Refuge appear to be increasing, 

fueled by the expanding number of dockings of “long voyage” cruise 

ships, as well as the recent increase in inter-island “short” cruises. 

• On peak visitation days, the KPNWR parking lot overflows between 

11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. by as many as seven vehicles. There are 

other times when one or two vehicles are in the overflow area, but the 

busiest time is consistently between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. 

• Although most visitors to the Overlook continue into the Refuge 

(between 55 and 67 percent)16, it is estimated that more than 100,000 

stop at the Overlook each year and leave without “entering” KPNWR17. 

This fact may affect future transportation options such as shuttle or 

public transportation operations, including the frequency of service, bus 

capacity, location of stops, or hours of operation. 

 

15 It should be noted that the timing of the TVP Study data collection in 2003 coincided with an 

unexpected downturn in visitation to Kauai Island and correspondingly to KPNWR. Two major 

events were occurring at the time which may have contributed to this decrease. The first was the 

general state of the economy. The recession of 2002-2003 reduced the number of Kauai tourists 

from the same time in previous years, which in turn affected the number of KPNWR visitors. The 

second event was the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which also had the immediate and continuing effect 

of reducing the number of tourists, especially international tourists, to both Kauai and KPNWR. 

Based on observations and anecdotal evidence through discussions with KPNWR staff, it is clear 

that that visitor count in 2003 was an anomaly. In order to estimate the potential “baseline” range 

of traffic and parking overflow problems, the TVP Study discussed an adjustment to the observed 

data to account for such external factors. (See TVP Study for details.) 

16 Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, KPNWR Traffic Visitor and Parking Counts Study, 

p.17. 

17 Based on analysis of data from the TVP Study. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 24 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

• The average duration of stay by visitors at the Overlook is approximately 

7 minutes, while the average duration of stay at the Point is 

approximately 40 minutes. 

• There is latent demand by visitors to walk into the Point from the 

Overlook. They are currently prohibited from doing so due to the 

narrow, steep, and circuitous nature of the KPNWR entrance road and 

the lack of pedestrian facilities (sidewalks or walking trails) on or 

adjacent to the entrance road. 

• Average vehicle occupancy at the Refuge tends to be higher in the 

summer (3.1 persons/vehicle) than in the spring (2.7 persons/vehicle), 

possibly because more families visit Kauai in the summer than in the 

spring. 

Visitor and Community Surveys

In a related research effort in support of the ATS Study, the U.S. Geological 

Survey Policy Analysis and Science Assistance (PASA) research team was 

retained by CFLHD, to conduct surveys of visitor and community attitudes about 

KPNWR, and to analyze implications of potential changes to KPNWR’s 

transportation system. The Visitor Perceptions and Economic Valuation 

Research for the KPNWR (PASA Completion Report) explored several aspects 

of KPNWR visitation as well as community attitudes, including the following: 

• Demographic profile of KPNWR visitors; 

• Importance of a visit to KPNWR in the context of other visitor activities, 

and visitor trip patterns and behavior on Kauai; 

• Economic value of a trip to KPNWR; 

• Community/resident perceptions of the Refuge and its visitor services; 

and 

• Attitudes about transportation modes including transit. 

Specific findings from the PASA Completion Report were used in the preparation 

of this Final Report, including the following: 

• Visitor demographic profiles, used to verify information in the TVP and 

RVP Final Reports, such as percentage of cruise ship passengers that 

visit KPNWR, and the average time spent at the Refuge; 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 25 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

• Likely impacts on Refuge visitation of potential increases in the entry 

fee; and 

• Visitor willingness to ride transit to access the Refuge, and potential 

impact on visitation if a transit-only transportation system alternative 

were to be implemented. 

Among KPNWR visitors, key factors affecting the feasibility of any transit 

alternative appeared to be: 

• Reliability and service; 

• Cost; 

• Availability of parking at the Refuge or near visitor amenities; and 

• The provision of guided narration (onboard interpretation) associated 

with the transit “experience,” beyond simply providing transportation to 

the Refuge. 

The PASA Completion Report found community opinion mixed regarding a 

potential shuttle system for KPNWR. It appears the community would support a 

system that: 

• Promoted homeowner privacy; 

• Reduced local traffic; 

• Included a park-and-ride facility located near the Kuhio Highway; 

• Was financially self-sustaining; and 

• Contributed to the economy of the Kilauea community. 

The community survey also indicated that better access to the Refuge via 

walking and bicycling paths is desired, as long as wildlife and habitat are not 

adversely affected. 

Refuge Visitor Projections Report (RVP)

The purpose of the RVP Report (found in Appendix A) was to characterize future 

visitation at KPNWR by relying on an understanding of the “baseline” conditions 

and likely growth rates. Developing this projection of future visitation involved a 

variety of relevant factors, including projected growth rates for overall visitation to 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 26 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Kauai Island, seasonal variations in visitation, and possible changes to visitor 

services at the Refuge. 

After completion of both the TVP Study and the public surveys conducted for the 

PASA Final Report, a fee collection booth was established at the Refuge in the 

summer of 2005, allowing more accurate visitor counts to the fee portion of the 

Refuge.18 Using the recently available visitor counts from actual fee booth data, 

combined with known seasonal and daily visitation patterns discerned through 

the TVP Study, three KPNWR visitation growth scenarios (referred to as Low-, 

Mid-, and High-Range) were developed in the RVP Report. 

The RVP Report has the following conclusions: 

• Visitation to the fee portion of the Refuge (the Point) is estimated to be 

about 215,000 in 2005, not including four “fee free” days with a total of 

about 4,000 visitors on those four days. 

• Growth in visitation over the next 20 years may range from 1.0 to 2.2 

percent per year. Under the Mid-Range Growth Rate Scenario (which 

assumes 1.4 percent growth per year), there would be about 32 percent 

more visitors to KPNWR in 2025 than in 2005. A Low Growth Rate 

Scenario would result in 22 percent more visitors, while a High Growth 

Rate Scenario would result in an increase of 55 percent. 

• Seasonal variability in visitation is not large at KPNWR, compared to 

similar destinations on the U.S. mainland. Visitation to KPNWR tends to 

peak in the winter, spring, and summer, declining about 17% in fall. 

The original intent of developing visitor projections was to account for possible 

changes to “visitor services” at the Refuge, based on an understanding of 

potential impacts from visitation and their compatibility with the biological 

conservation priorities of the Refuge. Visitor services, such as interpretative 

programs with staff or volunteer docents, enhancement of the onsite visitor 

center and bookstore, and increased opportunities for the public to interact and 

observe wildlife, could affect the number of visitors and the duration of a typical 

Refuge visit. 

However, an analysis of visitor carrying capacity has not yet been completed by 

FWS; and, through discussions with Refuge staff, it was determined that future 

changes to visitor services cannot be defined clearly at this time. For example, 

there are plans to reinstate a wildlife hike to Crater Hill from the Overlook, which 

had been cancelled due to lack of staff and concerns about interactions (negative 

 

18 Visitation numbers prior to 2005 were difficult to estimate, because until that time the Refuge 

staff did not clearly track the numbers of visitors; and, entry fees were collected only through an 

“honor box” payment station on Kilauea Point. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 27 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

impacts) on resident wildlife. However, this change is not expected to impact 

visitation or alter conclusions about long-range visitor forecasts. 

All refuges need to be flexible to respond to conditions affecting the welfare of 

their natural and cultural resources; including implementing programs that 

discourage, control, or encourage visitation, as needed or as permissible, in a 

manner that is compatible with the purposes of each refuge and the FWS. The 

low, mid-range, and high growth scenarios developed for the KPNWR long-range 

visitation forecast, reflect the uncertain future in regard to the provision of visitor 

services and represent a wide range of possible changes. 

Photo 6. Refuge visitors approaching new fee collection booth established on the 

Point in 2005 

Kilauea Town Planning Context: Community Issues

Kilauea Town Plan

During the course of this ATS Study, the ATS Team learned that the County of 

Kauai Planning Department intended to prepare a “Kilauea Town Plan” as a subarea plan in support of an amendment to the County of Kauai General Plan. 

Because great potential existed under the ATS Study for cooperative elements 

with the Kilauea community and the County, and because the ATS Study had 

also anticipated conducting public outreach activities, the ATS Team opted to 

participate actively in the Kilauea Town Plan meetings. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 28 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

In conjunction with the Kilauea Town Plan “charrette” process in February 2005, 

the ATS Study Team conducted extensive team meetings, met with local 

stakeholders and property owners, staffed an ATS Study display at a Kilauea 

Town Plan “open house” event, as well as organized two separate “public” 

events for the ATS Study: a multi-agency briefing meeting and a public meeting 

to present the ATS Study to the community. The agency meeting was advertised 

through direct notification to agencies, and attempts were made to advertise the 

community meeting through Kilauea Town Plan meeting organizers. The Team 

distributed a questionnaire about the preliminary KPNWR ATS transportation 

options at the February 2005 Kilauea Town charrette to solicit the community’s 

input on the options under consideration.19

The Draft Kilauea Town Plan document was publicly released in September 

2005. Public hearings before the Kauai County Planning Commission began in 

November 2005. FWS submitted testimony in support of this draft plan on March 

24, 2006. A copy of FWS’ testimony is included as Appendix B of this Final 

Report. In May 2006, the Kauai Planning Commission voted to approve the Draft 

Kilauea Town Plan, and forward it to the Kauai County Council. To date, the 

County Council has taken no formal action on the plan. 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Preplanning for the development of KPNWR’s Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan (CCP) effort is currently scheduled to begin in October 2007, although it 

could start in the fall 2006, if funding is available. The timing of the CCP process, 

especially if advanced, is such that it would likely overlap with the next phase 

(NEPA process) of this ATS Study effort; and as much as possible, the two 

efforts will be coordinated and integrated. 

Bypass Road Concept

The Draft Kilauea Town Plan recommends that Kilauea Town be expanded 

westward in phases, with the key focus on creating affordable housing 

opportunities for the Kilauea community. To that end, the draft plan discusses 

the need for a bypass road, not only to open up additional lands for development, 

but also to improve circulation and help address traffic concerns on Kilauea 

Road. 

As shown in Figure 4, there are two potential alignments for the bypass road. 

One would connect Kuhio Highway with Kilauea Road near the Post Office. The 

 

19 A “Trip Report” summarizing the activities conducted and materials prepared for the Kilauea 

Town charrette was separately prepared by PB and submitted to CFLHD and FWS. It includes 

documentation of the agency meeting, public meeting, and the results of the public questionnaire 

on preliminary transportation options. Note that the questionnaire response rate was low, with 

only 13 respondents, such that the results are deemed to be of limited use. However, of those 

respondents, one person preferred Moderate Improvements; three people preferred Minor 

Improvements, and six people (about half of the total) indicated a transit system as their first 

choice. Not all respondents indicated a clear preference. These responses are consistent with 

the findings of the PASA Final Report, which found community members mixed in their support of 

a transit system. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 29 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

other alignment would intersect Kilauea Road near the Kilauea Christian 

Academy and close to where Quarry Road meets Kilauea Road. Both 

alignments would intersect Kuhio Highway near Banana Joe’s fruit stand, and 

would likely divert at least some KPNWR traffic away from the center of Kilauea 

Town, especially mauka (toward the mountains) of the Post Office area. Both 

potential bypass alignments are discussed and illustrated within the Draft Kilauea 

Town Plan20. 

As noted in the Draft Town Plan, there is no firm commitment for funding and 

construction of a bypass road. The Plan states that without federal funding, the 

bypass is not feasible, and is not recommended as part of the first phase of Town 

expansion. Under the first phase, only a small leg of this potential future road 

would be built as a spur – not as a bypass – with access off of the main Kilauea 

Road at the center of Town. 

FWS and CFLHD are unable to make any commitments at this time about federal 

participation in a bypass road. However, a bypass road would allow more and 

potentially better options for accessing KPNWR from Kuhio Highway; as well as, 

improving general circulation and distributing traffic impacts in Town, regardless 

of whether or not a transit system is implemented. 

The Kilauea community in general seems to support a bypass road, because it 

would enhance circulation and community safety by reducing traffic volumes and 

congestion on Kilauea Road; and, may foster local economic development, 

especially new housing stock. A potential public/private joint venture in regard to 

potential advancement of this bypass concept may be worthy of future 

consideration; especially, if further development of adjacent land uses are 

permitted, subsequent to refinement of the Kilauea Town Plan and related Kauai 

General Plan amendment processes. 

It should be noted that if a bypass were to be constructed, the potential economic 

impacts on some existing private businesses in the Kilauea community 

(especially those along Kilauea Road) may be negative. This issue has not been 

analyzed here and is beyond the scope of this Study. However, it is likely that 

such a change in general circulation patterns, including those of visitors to the 

Refuge, would result in reduced traffic volumes on Kilauea Road and perhaps 

lost revenues for local businesses along this route. 

 

20 Draft Kilauea Town Plan, An Update of the Kilauea Sub-Area Plan, September 2005, p. 5-4, 

5-5 and 6-5. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 30 KP

September 2006 

Figure 4. Kilauea Town Vicinity with Potential Bypass Road Alignment

 and Potential Transit Hub Sites 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 31 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Location Options for Potential Transit Center (Hub) Development

The Draft Kilauea Town Plan shows two options for a possible transit center 

location, each of which could be used by a Refuge transit system (and perhaps 

also by Kauai Bus). The first location is on Kuhio Highway, at the projected 

intersection of the first of two potential bypass road alignments. The second 

location under consideration is in Kilauea Town, near the existing Post Office, 

which is located on the second potential bypass alignment. (See Figure 4.). 

The potential hub site on Kuhio Highway may be adjacent to and could share 

parking with a potential civic use, such as a local park; whereas, the second site 

in the town center would be adjacent to light industrial zoning and close to 

established commercial areas. The Kuhio Highway site is shown as the 

preferred transit center “Hub” site in the Draft Kilauea Town Plan; but, the Plan 

preparers have indicated that the town center location would also be viable, 

especially if the bypass road were to be built. 

Both sites are deemed to be viable for a potential Refuge transit system. The 

Kuhio Highway site was used for costing and analytic purposes in this study, as 

this location would generate more conservative estimates about travel times and 

operating costs21. However, the site near the Post Office is also under 

consideration, because the current light industrial zoning is compatible with such 

transportation facilities, and accommodates FWS’ desire to relocate its 

maintenance and storage facility to the transfer site. Also such uses would be 

more compatible with existing adjacent land uses, and would facilitate greater 

visitor access to existing and future retail commercial activities. A potential 

layout of a generic park-and-ride facility that could be used at either location can 

be found in Appendix D. The Transit Feasibility section later in this Final Report 

looks at the costs of operating a shuttle to KPNWR from each potential location.

Kauai Bus

Kauai Bus provides the only public transit service on Kauai. Kilauea Town is 

served by routes 400, 400E, 500 and 500E, with scheduled stops at the Kilauea 

Food Mart, approximately eight times per weekday in each direction, plus four 

times in each direction on Saturdays. There is no transit service on Sundays. 

The ATS Study Team made concerted efforts to coordinate specifically with 

Kauai Bus, the County’s local bus service. The intent was to explore the 

possibility of combining operations and/or co-locating operational facilities. 

Although Kauai Bus indicated they are considering installing a transit center or 

more permanent bus stop in Kilauea Town in the future, no specific, detailed 

plans have been established, and no mention of this idea appears in the Kilauea 

Town Plan. Either of the potential transit center locations identified may be able 

 

21 Because the Kuhio Highway site is further from the Refuge, it is estimated that associated 

shuttle system operating costs would be higher at this location; i.e., a more conservative cost 

estimate. It was assumed that if a shuttle system were feasible from this site, it would also be 

feasible (and less expensive to operate) from a location closer to the Refuge. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 32 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

to accommodate the operational needs of Kauai Bus, in concert or not, with the 

potential provision of shuttle transit service to the Refuge. 

For purposes of this Final Report, and because no definitive direction has been 

articulated to date by Kauai Bus, or is delineated in their current four-year “longrange” transit plan, the Team has chosen to explore transit alternatives for 

KPNWR that do not require coordination with Kauai Bus. Reassessment of this 

issue is recommended for the next phase of this study. 

KPNWR “Free Days” Shuttle Bus Service

KPNWR is open to the public and free of charge on four days each year: 

Lighthouse Day in May, Ocean Fair Day in July, Free Public Lands Day in 

September, and National Wildlife Refuge Week day in October. On those days, 

attendance sometimes exceeds 1,000 visitors (compared with about 600 on 

normal days, when entry fees are charged to most visitors over the age of 16). 

To accommodate this level of visitation, the Refuge has begun to close the 

parking area on the Point on one of those free days (Ocean Fair Day), requiring 

visitors to use a free shuttle bus from one or more staging and parking areas. 

Most recently, Kauai Christian Academy was used as a staging/parking area, 

which is located north of Kilauea Town on Kilauea Road, roughly 1 mile from the 

Refuge. Volunteers directed visitors to park in a grassy field next to the 

Academy and use the free shuttle system, which consisted of three 19-

passenger school buses. According to Refuge staff, the transit service appeared 

to work well on Ocean Fair Day, and has shown to be a feasible method for 

serving a large number of visitors. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 33 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Visitor Projections Summary 

The following is a summary of the Refuge Visitor Projections Report (RVP) (PB, 

March 2006), which was an earlier element of the ATS Study effort (The full 

report can be found in Appendix A.). The RVP Report identified three potential 

growth scenarios for the Refuge: 

• Low Growth Scenario, which accounts for economic downturns, a 

possible reduction in services at the Refuge, and other factors which 

could limit the growth in visitation to the Refuge; 

• Mid-Range Growth Scenario, which uses a combination of past trends 

and market growth projections from the State of Hawaii Department of 

Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (DBEDT) to represent 

moderate projected growth; and 

• High Growth Scenario, which assumes a combination of an improved 

tourism market, increased visitor services, and/or other factors which 

could result in a higher visitor growth rate over time at the Refuge. 

These low, mid-range, and high growth rates were then combined with other 

variables of interest to the FWS. 

Changes Over Time - Visitor projections (forecasts) were developed for the 

short-term (5-year), medium-term (10-year), and long-term (20-year) planning 

horizons. 

• Short-Term Forecast (Year 2010) – Represents the situation within a 

5-year period, which corresponds to the time required to phase in initial 

improvements or implement interim stopgap transportation measures. 

• Medium-Term Forecast (Year 2015) – Represents the 10-year horizon, 

which could be a transitional period between short-term measures and 

long-term transportation solutions. 

• Long-Term Forecast (Year 2025) – Represents a 20-year period, 

which is enough time to plan for and design transportation alternatives 

that will serve the anticipated growth in visitation at KPNWR. 

KPNWR Annual Visitor Projections – Annual visitor projections for persons 

and vehicles entering the Refuge; i.e., onto the “Point” via the entry gate (but not 

including those who visit the Overlook and then leave without entering the 

Refuge), using the three growth scenarios described above, are presented in 

Table 1. The annual forecast for 2005 was extrapolated from actual visitor 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 34 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

counts (provided by the Refuge) from a 5-month period (July 16 to December 15, 

2005). 

Peak and Off-Peak Seasons Forecasts – Based on a review of visitor fee 

receipts compiled by Refuge staff for FY2000 through FY2004, it was determined 

that peak seasons at KPNWR are winter, spring, and summer, while fall is 

considered off-peak. Daily, peak season visitor projections are shown in Table 2, 

and were calculated by dividing the annual estimate of total visitation by a factor 

of 32922. Table 3 shows daily, off-peak season projections, which were 

calculated by reducing the peak season forecasts by 17 percent23. 

Growth rates for the off-peak period (fall) are assumed to be the same as the 

peak period. For more information on visitor projections, forecasting methods, 

and results, see the KPNWR Visitor Projections Report in Appendix A. 

 

22 This factor was determined by comparing daily fee receipts from a typical peak-season day in 

March and August, to annual receipts from the same time period (FY2000-FY2004). This 

methodology is similar to that used by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal 

Transit Administration, state departments of transportation, and transit agencies. See Table 4 to 

see how this factor was calculated. 

23 Comparing average fee receipts from all four seasons indicates that winter, spring, and 

summer have similar attendance, while fall is about 17% lower. See Table 5 for calculations. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 35 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Table 1. KPNWR Visitation Growth Forecasts (Annual) 

Year Low Growth Rate 

Scenario

Mid-Range 

Growth Rate 

Scenario 

High Growth Rate 

Scenario 

Average Annual 

Growth Rate 1.0% 1.4% 2.2%

Persons 

2005 (estimate of 

existing annual 

visitors) 

215,00024

Short-term: 

2010 (5-year 

projection) 

226,000 231,000 240,000 

Medium-term: 

2015 (10-year 

projection) 

238,000 247,000 267,000 

Long-term: 

2025 (20-year 

projection) 

262,000 284,000 332,000 

Growth (2005-2025) 22% 32% 55% 

All Vehicles 

2005 (estimate of 

existing annual 

vehicles) 

74,10025

Short-term: 

2010 (5-year 

projection) 

78,000 80,000 83,000 

Medium-term: 

2015 (10-year 

projection) 

82,000 85,000 92,000 

Long-term: 

2025 (20-year 

projection) 

91,000 98,000 115,000 

Growth (2005-2025) 22% 32% 55% 

 

24 Based on extrapolation of actual visitor count data from July-December 2005. 25 Based on average occupancy of 2.9 persons per vehicle. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 36 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Table 2. KPNWR Visitation Growth Forecasts (Daily, Peak Season26) 

Year Low Growth Rate 

Scenario

Mid-Range 

Growth Rate 

Scenario 

High Growth Rate 

Scenario 

Average Annual 

Growth Rate 1.0% 1.4% 2.2% 

Persons 

2005 (estimate of 

existing daily 

visitors) 

65327

Short-term: 

2010 (5-year 

projection) 

690 700 730 

Medium-term: 

2015 (10-year 

projection) 

720 750 810 

Long-term: 

2025 (20-year 

projection) 

800 860 1010 

Growth Projection 

(2005-2025) 22% 32% 55% 

All Vehicles 

2005 (estimate of 

existing daily 

vehicles) 

22528

Short-term: 

2010 (5-year 

projection) 

240 240 250 

Medium-term: 

2015 (10-year 

projection) 

250 260 280 

Long-term: 

2025 (20-year 

projection) 

280 300 350 

Growth Projection 

(2005-2025) 22% 32% 55% 

 

26 Peak season is defined as winter, spring, and summer, combined. 27 Based on annual estimate divided by annual-to-peak conversion factor of 329. 28 Based on average occupancy of 2.9 persons per vehicle. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 37 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Table 3. KPNWR Visitation Growth Forecasts (Daily, Off-Peak Season29) 

Year Low Growth Rate 

Scenario

Mid-Range 

Growth Rate 

Scenario 

High Growth Rate 

Scenario 

Average Annual 

Growth Rate 1.0% 1.4% 2.2% 

Persons 

2005 (estimate of 

existing daily 

visitors) 

54730

Short-term: 

2010 (5-year 

projection) 

580 590 610 

Medium-term: 

2015 (10-year 

projection) 

600 630 680 

Long-term: 

2025 (20-year 

projection) 

670 720 850 

Growth Projection 

(2005-2025) 22% 32% 55% 

All Vehicles 

2005 (estimate of 

existing daily 

vehicles) 

18931

Short-term: 

2010 (5-year 

projection) 

200 200 210 

Medium-term: 

2015 (10-year 

projection) 

210 220 230 

Long-term: 

2025 (20-year 

projection) 

230 250 290 

Growth Projection 

(2005-2025) 22% 32% 55% 

 

29Off-peak season is defined as fall (October-December). 30Based on estimate of daily peak season visitors, adjusted downward by 17 percent. 31Based on average occupancy of 2.9 persons per vehicle. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 38 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Table 4. KPNWR Peak Day to Annual Conversion Calculations 

Monthly Visitation Receipts, Averaged for FY2000-FY2004 

Month Average Receipts 

for Month 

January $31,397 

February $35,163 

March $34,562 

April $31,093 

May $33,269 

June $32,773 

July $34,578 

August $35,106 

September $31,502 

October $32,547 

November $25,961 

December $24,299 

TOTAL YEARLY $382,450 

March/August monthly 

average32

$34,834 

March/August average day $1,161 

Conversion factor33

(annual divided by average 

day in March/August) 

329 

Table 5. Comparing Peak Season with Off-Peak Season Visitation 

Season Average Monthly 

Receipts 

Winter (Jan-Mar) $33,707 

Spring (Apr-Jun) $32,378 

Summer (Jul-Sep) $33,503 

Fall (Oct-Dec) $27,669 

 

Peak Season (winter, spring 

and summer combined) $33,196 

Off-Peak Season (fall) $27,669 

Difference, Peak to Off-Peak 17% 

 

32 March and August were used to match the dates studied in the Traffic, Visitor and Parking 

Counts Study in 2003. 

33 Calculations do not include 4 annual free days, when visitation often reaches 1000. The days 

are Lighthouse Day in May, Ocean Fair Day in July, Free Public Lands Day in September, and 

National Wildlife Refuge Week day in October. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 39 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Conceptual Transportation Alternatives 

The visitor projections outlined above indicate a possible need for both short- and 

medium-term improvements, as well as long-term strategies to access and enjoy 

KPNWR, which could eventually include a transit shuttle operation or other 

improvements. In response, a series of draft conceptual transportation 

alternatives have been developed and critiqued by the ATS Study Team, 

undergoing preliminary evaluation of their practicality and potential feasibility. 

The five conceptual transportation alternatives identified to date are described 

below. 

Initial alternatives were developed and evaluated by the ATS Study Team, and 

refined prior to and during a planning charrette held February 22-24, 2005, that 

involved Refuge staff, stakeholders and agency personnel. These alternatives 

were presented to the public during a Kilauea Town Plan (An Update of the 

Kilauea Sub-Area Plan) meeting, a County of Kauai General Plan process held in 

February 2005. Public comments were requested; however, the number of 

community responses received was low, and no additional transportation 

alternatives were suggested via public input, aside from variations or 

combinations of those already proposed. 

During the anticipated NEPA evaluation phase, the No-Build Alternative, plus the 

other draft transportation alternatives will be re-examined. Some of the 

alternatives may be screened out during this phase. A combination of 

alternatives may also be considered for implementation in a phased manner. A 

summary of the Conceptual Transportation Alternatives is shown in Table 6. An 

attribute/preliminary evaluation matrix, including preliminary cost estimates and 

details of the conceptual alternatives under consideration are included as 

Appendix C. 

Alternative 1: No-Build 

The No-Build Alternative is the same as the current situation at KPNWR, and 

establishes the baseline for analysis and evaluation. This “status quo” alternative 

consists of no physical or operational change from the existing conditions, and no 

additional parking would be provided. FWS staff would continue to assist with 

parking cars at the Point during high public use periods to facilitate safe public 

access to onsite overflow parking, and to escort school buses to specific parking 

spots (by appointment only). 

Private tour operators would continue to provide service to KPNWR, as they do 

today. No public transit service to KPNWR would be provided by FWS or any 

other provider. Bicycle access would continue to be allowed, though infrequently 

used and not encouraged. Pedestrian access would continue to be prohibited 

onto the Point due to the lack of pedestrian facilities, onsite safety and 

environmental concerns. There would be no change in access to the Overlook; 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 40 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

i.e., uncontrolled public access, at all times and days, would continue to be 

allowed. 

The 2003 TVP Study documented that private transit vehicles (including tour 

vans and taxis) currently carry about 5% of all visitors into the Refuge, while 

about 95% arrive by private vehicle (primarily rental car). A very small 

percentage arrives by bicycle or on school buses in scheduled groups. It is 

assumed that these percentages would continue in the No-Build scenario. 

Alternative 2: Minor Improvements, Transportation System Management 

(TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) 

This alternative would include few or no changes to the current parking areas at 

the Refuge, keeping the number of available public parking spaces the same as 

today. This alternative would primarily focus on a series of TSM and TDM 

measures that seek to better manage the existing onsite parking capacities. 

These measures could include one or a combination of the following: 

broadcasting traffic and parking information via the media and/or a public 

website; providing potential Refuge visitors with real-time parking information via 

signs/radio/mobile technologies, i.e., Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) 

applications; potential use of a dedicated onsite parking attendant during times of 

high visitation; implementation of time limits on parking; installation of parking 

meters to discourage long visitations; and congestion pricing and other measures 

to make more efficient use of the current parking supply. 

Private tour operators would continue to provide service to the Refuge, as they 

do today. Boarding areas or dedicated parking for private tour operators may be 

provided at the Refuge, to encourage greater use of this option. Bicycle and 

pedestrian access could possibly be accommodated, but only if found to be 

compatible with the protection of habitat species. In addition, components of this 

alternative could be phased as needed or included in other alternatives as 

appropriate. 

Alternative 3: Moderate Improvements to Increase Capacity 

This alternative would provide moderate onsite physical improvements to the 

entrance road and parking areas at the Overlook and at the Point, to increase the 

visitor capacity of the Refuge.34 Passenger boarding and parking areas for 

private shuttle bus and/or tour operators could be provided at both the Overlook 

and at the Point. Parking areas would be better defined and possibly enlarged to 

accommodate additional cars and improved access/circulation. The Refuge 

entrance road could be improved to accommodate larger vehicles and possibly a 

 

34 The amount of additional parking needed is estimated in the next section. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 41 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

bicycle lane and/or pedestrian path, if found to be desirable.35 Other optional 

elements of this alternative include using environmentally friendly porous paving 

or other surface type in overflow parking areas, which would minimize additional 

stormwater runoff and facilitate vegetation growth. 

To facilitate an expansion of parking at the Overlook, acquisition of all or a part of 

the parcel of land (immediately adjacent to Refuge property at the Overlook) from 

the County of Kauai, or development of a formal Use Agreement for same, may 

be pursued by FWS under a separate process. Previous conversations between 

FWS and County staff have indicated an interest in this option by both 

organizations. 

Alternative 4: Voluntary Shuttle with Private Vehicle Access 

This alternative includes a dedicated, albeit voluntary shuttle service to the 

Refuge from an offsite “Hub” transit facility that would also offer visitor services 

such as parking, Refuge entry fee payment (which includes a round-trip ride on 

the voluntary shuttle), restrooms, a bookstore, and other resources. The Hub 

could also be used for Refuge operational needs such as shuttle vehicle parking, 

maintenance vehicle parking and equipment storage, administrative offices, and 

other related functions. Onsite improvements at the Point would be limited to 

improved shuttle bus boarding and waiting facilities, and possible layover or 

parking for transit vehicles and tour vans. The number of general use parking 

spaces at the Point may need to be reduced and access/circulation modified to 

accommodate transit and tour vehicles. Other optional features of this alternative 

include improvements to the Overlook and/or the Point proposed in Alternative 3, 

such as improvements to the onsite entrance road, for safety and better access 

by shuttle buses and other modes (e.g., bicyclists). 

Using attractive road signage, online “real-time” information, and/or ITS 

applications, visitors would be directed to the offsite Hub facility first, to pay entry 

fees and would be encouraged to ride the shuttle to the Refuge (at no additional 

charge).36 This alternative would not prohibit private vehicle parking at the Point, 

but no additional parking capacity would be provided onsite to accommodate the 

expected increase in demand over time37. Some existing onsite parking may 

need to be eliminated to accommodate potential transit operations at the Refuge. 

Thus, as an incentive to use transit, the KPNWR visitor would incur no additional 

cost above the established Refuge entry fee. That is, each visitor would be 

charged the same entry fee, whether using the shuttle or accessing the Refuge 

 

35 Pedestrian access on the Refuge’s entrance road is considered a safety issue by FWS 

personnel. While this option is being retained until more detailed engineering analysis and 

consideration of management options can be completed, pedestrian access would require the 

widening and reconfiguration of the entrance road or separate path alignment, which is likely to 

affect endangered bird habitat. 

36 Offsite transit hubs were considered in other areas, such as Lihue or at resorts, but deemed 

less feasible than one located in Kilauea Town. 

37 Parking at the Point may actually need to be reduced to accommodate shuttle vehicles. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 42 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

by a private vehicle38. However, the potential to provide interpretive narration on 

the shuttle by either an informed driver, a volunteer or staff tour guide (which, 

based on the PASA survey research, has been determined to be desirable by the 

general public), would enhance the experience of the visitor that utilizes this 

transit option. 

Aspects of other alternatives (listed above) could be included or phased under 

this alternative. These could include, ITS applications to inform visitors and 

improve the efficiency of the existing parking areas, improved pedestrian and 

bicycle access (only if found to be desirable), and/or expanded parking at the 

Overlook area using the adjacent parcel currently owned by the County. 

Alternative 5: Access by Mandatory Shuttle Only 

This alternative is similar to Alternative 4, involving the construction of an offsite 

Hub transit facility with parking for Refuge visitors, a bookstore and other visitor 

amenities, and administrative, operational, and maintenance facilities. However, 

in this alternative, public access to the Point (beyond the entrance gate) by 

private vehicle would be prohibited year-round. Visitors would park at the Hub 

and use the shuttle to reach and enter the Refuge. 

While no parking for personal vehicles would be permitted on the Point, limited 

public parking would remain available at the Overlook, and could be expanded 

onto the parcel of land currently owned by the County. Management of general 

purpose parking would no longer be required at the Point, which would reduce 

administrative and staff costs, relative to the other alternatives. As with 

Alternative 4, aspects of other alternatives (listed above) could be included or 

phased under this alternative, if found to be desirable. This includes ITS 

applications, improved signage, and possible improvements for pedestrians and 

bicyclists. 

 

38 It is assumed that visitors who currently are not charged an entry fee (Golden Eagle, etc. pass 

holders and visitors under 16 years of age) would continue to get in for free. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 43 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Table 6. Summary of KPNWR Conceptual Transportation Alternatives39

Alternative Name Description 

1 No-Build No physical or operational change from 

today. 

2 Minor Improvements, 

Transportation System 

Management (TSM) 

and Transportation 

Demand Management 

(TDM) 

Some physical or operational changes to 

improve effective capacity through improved 

management of parking resources. Could 

include: improved visitor information through 

road signage or posting on KPNWR web 

page, hiring parking attendant, time limits on 

parking, parking fees, and/or other strategies.

3 Moderate 

Improvements 

Some physical improvements to increase 

capacity, possibly including boarding and 

parking areas for private tour operators, 

better definition of existing parking and some 

additional parking, and improved entrance 

road to accommodate larger vehicles and 

possibly bicycles and pedestrians. Possible 

expansion of Overlook parking onto adjacent 

County parcel. 

4 Transit Shuttle Service 

with Private Vehicle 

Access 

Voluntary shuttle access from offsite Hub 

facility. Visitor parking still allowed at Refuge, 

but may be reduced to accommodate 

boarding and waiting areas for shuttle 

vehicles. Possible access for bicyclists. 

Could include components of other 

alternatives. Possible expansion of Overlook 

parking onto adjacent County parcel. 

5 Access by Transit 

Shuttle Service Only 

Mandatory transit shuttle service from offsite 

Hub facility. Parking no longer allowed within 

the Refuge. Possible access for bicyclists. 

Possible access by private tour operators, 

vans, and taxis. Could include components 

of other alternatives. Possible expansion of 

Overlook parking onto adjacent County 

parcel. 

 

39 The full matrix of conceptual transportation alternatives can be found in Attachment C. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 44 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Estimating Future Parking Demand 

This section shows anticipated demand for parking at the Refuge, and discusses 

how the implementation of the five conceptual transportation alternatives, 

described in the previous section, would affect parking demand over time. 

In the Refuge Visitor Projection Report (RVP), general visitation and parking 

demand trends were calculated for KPNWR based on factors such as overall 

visitation to Kauai, cruise ship arrivals, potential changes to services at the 

Refuge, and possible changes in entry fees. Three growth rates (low, mid-range, 

and high) were established, and visitation and parking demand were projected 

using these growth rates for three target years: 2010, 2015, and 2025. 

Existing Conditions and Future Demand for Parking 

The Traffic, Visitor, and Parking Counts Study (TVP Study) identified current 

parking duration (elapsed time) and utilization rates by time of day at the Refuge. 

Those results were applied to the parking projections, using the mid-range 

growth rate, to forecast future parking demand on an hour-by-hour basis at both 

the Point and the Overlook. 

The TVP Report found that the duration of each public visit is about 5-10 minutes 

(7 minutes average) at the Overlook and 40-45 minutes (41 minutes average) at 

the Point.40 Parking duration affects the capacity of the parking lots. At the 

Overlook, the effective hourly capacity of existing parking is increased by the 

high vehicle turnover rate that results from short duration visits. 

The resulting hour-by-hour projected demand for parking at the Point is shown 

for peak seasons (winter, spring, and summer) in Figure 5, and for the off-peak 

season (fall) in Figure 6. Projected demand for parking at the Overlook is shown 

in Figure 7 (peak season) and Figure 8 (off-peak). It should be noted that these 

tables show projected demand, and have not been adjusted to account for the 

inadequate supply of parking that will inevitably occur over time. While the 

demand for parking will continue to rise with the increase in visitation, the total 

amount of cars could never exceed capacity. Additionally, there could be a 

certain amount of existing pent-up demand for parking that is not being met, 

described as overcrowding by Refuge staff, via anecdotal observations. 

Figure 5 indicates that during the peak season, parking demand currently (2005) 

exceeds onsite capacity (49 spaces plus two disabled spaces)41 in the late 

morning, and will tend to approach or exceed capacity through much of the day 

by 2010. By 2015, the demand for parking at the Point will routinely exceed 

 

40 Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc. “Traffic, Visitor and Parking Counts Study.” 

January 2004, pg.15-16. 

41 The grassy overflow area is not counted as part of the normal capacity, and is only used when 

needed. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 45 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

capacity throughout the day during the peak season and in the late morning 

during the off-peak season. 

The 2004 TVP Study did not specifically count parking utilization at the Overlook 

(located on the Refuge, but outside the entry gate and perimeter fencing). 

However, observations during the TVP Study and by Refuge staff indicate that 

the six paved spaces currently located at the Overlook are typically full before the 

10:00 a.m. daily opening of the Refuge gate to the public. Additionally, much of 

the dirt overflow area (Kauai County property) next to Kilauea Road (also 

property of the County of Kauai), is also often full at this time. It was observed 

during the TVP Study that many of these spaces are occupied by early-arriving 

Refuge visitors, waiting for the gate into the Refuge/Point area to open at 10:00 

a.m. Often there is a queue of vehicles in front of the gate waiting to enter when 

the Refuge opens. This congestion is problematic because it results in the 

obstruction of the Refuge entrance gate, hindering official and emergency 

ingress/egress prior to the Refuge opening time. Often, this congestion also 

obstructs parking and mobility within the Overlook area. During the rest of the 

day, when the Refuge is officially opened to the public, the Overlook parking 

area, including the overflow area, did not appear to fill to capacity during the 

2004 TVP Study42. Parking turnover at the Overlook continues to be high, but 

more recent observations by Refuge staff have shown most Overlook parking 

spaces to be filled throughout the day. Figures 7 (peak season) and 8 (off-peak 

season) show the estimated and projected hourly parking demand at the 

Overlook.43

Although, currently there may not be a consistent parking problem throughout the 

day at the Overlook, this is likely to be a future concern if alternative 

transportation modes are introduced at the Point and entry fees are raised. Due 

to the unique location of the Overlook (near the Point, yet outside the Refuge’s 

controlled access area), there will be the potential for ongoing operational 

problems. The Overlook should be included in future transportation study 

phases. 

The sub-sections that follow Figures 5 through 8 discuss how the various 

transportation alternatives under consideration would impact the projected 

demand for parking at KPNWR. 

 

42 Capacity of the Overlook is difficult to determine because the dirt overflow area is not marked, 

and cars tend to park haphazardly, which significantly reduces the effective capacity. 43 Projected parking demand at the Overlook is based on projected growth in overall visitation, but 

does not account for possible changes in access to the Point that may occur if a shuttle system or 

other alternative transportation programs were to be implemented. Capacity of the Overlook in 

Figures 6 and 7 is based on the six paved parking spaces with an average turnover of 6 times per 

hour or once every 10 minutes, for an hourly capacity of 36 vehicles. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 46 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Figure 5. Projected Demand for Parking at the Point – Peak Season 

Figure 6. Projected Demand for Parking at the Point – Off-Peak Season 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

10-11 11-12 12-1 1-2 2-3 3-4

Time of Day

Parking Spaces Occupied

2005

2010

2015

2025

Current Parking Lot Capacity

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

10-11 11-12 12-1 1-2 2-3 3-4

Time of Day

Parking Spaces Occupied

2005

2010

2015

2025

Current Parking Lot Capacity
Parsons Brinckerhoff 47 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Figure 7. Projected Demand for Overlook Parking – Peak Season 

Figure 8. Projected Demand for Overlook Parking – Off-Peak Season 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

9-10 10-11 11-12 12-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5

Time of Day

Vehicles Arriving at Overlook

2005

2010

2015

2025

Effective Hourly Parking Lot 

Capacity Adjusted to Reflect 

High Visitor Turnover

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

9-10 10-11 11-12 12-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5

Time of Day

Vehicles Arriving at Overlook

2005

2010

2015

2025

Effective Hourly Parking Lot 

Capacity Adjusted to Reflect 

High Visitor Turnover
Parsons Brinckerhoff 48 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Effect of each Conceptual Transportation Alternative on Projected Demand 

for Parking 

Alternative 1: No-Build

As mentioned earlier, the No-Build Alternative assumes no improvements to the 

parking areas, no short-term changes in entry fees (except for inflation), no 

significant changes to visitor services, and no implementation of a transit shuttle 

system or other transportation improvements. Onsite parking capacity at the 

Refuge (Overlook and Point) would remain at the current level, and all vehicles 

accessing the Refuge would continue to drive through the Kilauea Town 

community to access the Refuge. 

Under this Alternative, by 2010, parking demand at the Point would approach or 

exceed existing supply much of the day during peak seasons; and by 2015, 

parking demand would approach or exceed supply even during certain hours of 

the day in the off-peak season. Under the No-Build Alternative, there is no 

attempt to mitigate the unmet parking demand. The result would be a cap on 

growth in visitation to the Refuge, as visitors are forced to wait in their cars at the 

entrance gate; or, to circulate in the parking area below, waiting for someone to 

vacate a parking space; or, to just “give up” and leave the Refuge. Such actions 

result in a “one in, one out” scenario that is very inefficient, and would negatively 

affect onsite access, mobility, air quality, and the visitor experience. 

Under such congested conditions, it is likely that many potential visitors would be 

discouraged and instead of attempting to visit the Refuge, would decide to leave 

and either come back at a different time or day, or choose to visit another Kauai 

attraction instead of KPNWR.44 Some Island visitors who are determined to 

experience KPNWR and are forewarned about parking conditions may choose to 

join a private tour group or come by taxi. The overall result under this Alternative 

will be that visitation levels under the No-Build scenario are likely to level off 

sometime between 2010 and 2015, as parking capacity at the Refuge is reached 

on a daily basis. This Alternative offers no relief to the through traffic generated 

in the Kilauea community, due to the growing popularity of KPNWR. It may also 

exacerbate the problem as increasing numbers of potential Refuge visitors are 

turned away, likely increasing roundtrips to KPNWR overall. 

Alternative 2: Minor Improvements, Transportation Systems Management (TSM)

and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) 

Alternative 2 would institute potential low cost techniques to mitigate the unmet 

demand on the parking facilities. This Alternative would involve few or no onsite 

physical changes to the Refuge. Instead, changes would focus on improving the 

 

44 The PASA Visitor Survey indicated that KPNWR visitors made multiple stops on the same day 

they visited the Refuge; and there is a high likelihood that, due to time constraints, they would be 

unwilling to wait for a parking space to open up at the Refuge, and would decide to leave for 

another destination. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 49 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

effective capacity of the existing parking lots through better management of the 

parking resource. These changes could include improved visitor information via 

signage, a Refuge web page and/or ITS applications, hiring a parking attendant, 

imposing time limits on parking, increased parking fees, congestion pricing 

and/or encouraging visitation during times-of-day when parking utilization is 

lower, and other similar management strategies. Information about parking 

restrictions and “best times to visit” could be posted on the KPNWR web page, 

and/or included in brochures given out at hotels and other attractions. An 

attractive/unobtrusive electronic sign (ITS application) on the main road (Kuhio 

Highway) could inform visitors about the current status of parking (available or 

full) at the Refuge. 

Collectively, these measures would have the effect of distributing visitation 

demand by encouraging people to visit during times when the Refuge is less 

busy. This would increase the effective capacity of the existing parking lots and 

ultimately serve more Refuge visitors, compared to the No-Build Alternative. As 

there are many different TSM techniques that could be applied, it is difficult to 

quantify how much more efficient the existing lots could become; but the overall 

effect would accommodate growth in visitation beyond what would be seen under 

the No-Build Alternative, although still below the projected demand seen in 

Figures 5 and 6. In addition, traffic congestion through Kilauea Town would 

continue to increase as the number of Refuge visitors grows. 

Alternative 3: Moderate Improvements to Increase Capacity

This Alternative would attempt to improve Refuge access and parking supply to 

meet long-term demand. It would improve or expand Overlook waiting, parking, 

and viewing areas and allow private shuttle vans and possibly small tour buses to 

park inside the Refuge boundary at Kilauea Point. The existing parking lot 

configuration at the Point, including the installation of a shuttle van pick-up/ 

drop-off area, would be improved and expanded. The Refuge entrance road may 

be widened to better accommodate shuttle vans. Access for bicycles and/or 

pedestrians may also be improved or provided, given the environmental 

constraints referenced earlier. 

This Alternative is the only one that includes expanding the number of parking 

spaces at the Point in an attempt to satisfy projected demand. As seen in 

Figures 5 and 6, demand for parking already exceeds supply at this location at 

certain times of the day during the peak season, and this demand will continue to 

grow. Increasing the supply of onsite parking would accommodate anticipated 

growth in visitation, but would also route additional traffic through Kilauea Town, 

and could have a negative impact on Refuge resources. Development and 

construction of shuttle bus loading areas, providing parking for vans, and building 

sidewalks or bike paths would likely increase the number of people using 

alternative modes, although the vast majority of visitors would continue to drive 

into the Refuge. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 50 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

The number of additional parking spaces provided under this Alternative would 

depend on physical constraints at the site and decisions about how other modes 

of access are accommodated, if at all. The overall result of increased parking 

capacity would be growth in visitation that resembles the projected demand seen 

in Figures 5 and 6, until the new parking capacity level is reached. To satisfy 

average peak-hour demand during the peak season in 2010, 10 additional 

parking spaces (59 total) would be needed, while by 2015, about 14 more spaces 

would be needed (63 total). That amount of additional parking could be 

accommodated by converting the grassy overflow area (which currently 

accommodates about 20 cars) into a parking lot. However, this alternative would 

necessitate eliminating or altering part of the wildlife habitat in the grassy 

overflow area. The projected number of total parking spaces needed at KPNWR 

by 2025, is about 73, or 24 more than currently provided. Provision of that many 

new spaces would require converting all of the grassy overflow area into 

permanent parking, plus utilizing an additional area onsite not currently used for 

parking. 

Alternative 4: Voluntary Shuttle with Private Vehicle Access

This Alternative would provide a voluntary shuttle service from an offsite “Hub” 

transit facility that would also offer KPNWR visitor services such as parking, 

restrooms, entry fee payment, a bookstore, and other resources. For purposes 

of this Final Report, the potential Hub is assumed to be either at a site on Kuhio 

Highway or near the Kilauea Post Office45 (See Figure 4.). 

Improvements at the Refuge Overlook and Kilauea Point would be limited to 

those needed to serve the shuttle service, and possibly provide access for other 

alternative modes, such as private shuttle vans, pedestrians, and bicycles, if 

found to be desirable. The Overlook improvements would also attempt to 

eliminate existing morning congestion at the entrance gate, which often hinders 

access to the Point. Changes in the existing parking lot(s) on the Point may be 

needed to accommodate shuttle vehicle waiting/loading zones and improved 

circulation. Such changes in parking capacity at the Point, and/or the use of 

“congestion pricing,” where parking costs vary by hour based on the anticipated 

level of demand, may result in negative spill-over effects at the Overlook, 

creating increased demand for the limited parking there. An example of what 

might be needed is shown in Appendix D, Figures 5-1 through 5-7. The amount 

of parking at the Point may actually need to be reduced to accommodate shuttle 

boarding and waiting facilities. 

As mentioned earlier, Refuge-bound traffic would be directed to the Hub first, 

where visitors would pay their entry fee, be provided information about the 

Refuge, and be given the choice of riding the free shuttle with guided narration or 

 

45 The Draft Kilauea Town Plan: An Update of the Kilauea Sub-Area Plan (September 2005) 

indicates that a transit center may be accommodated on a parcel fronting Kuhio Highway. Other 

potential sites inside Kilauea Town, not adjacent to Kuhio Highway, have been discussed, such 

as those parcels reserved for “civic” uses, and are noted in the Draft Kilauea Town Plan. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 51 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

driving to the Refuge. Visitors would be provided with real-time information about 

the availability of parking, and would be encouraged to ride the shuttle (even if 

parking is available at the Point). If parking at the Point is not available, visitors 

would be directed to take the shuttle or to wait until parking becomes available. 

As discussed in the Transit section later in this Final Report, it is estimated that 

10-20 percent of visitors would choose to use the voluntary shuttle, meaning that 

80-90 percent would still continue to drive. The result is that the available 

parking spaces at the Point would be occupied most of the day during the peak 

season. Growth in parking demand at the Point would be limited by supply, while 

overall growth in visitation could be accommodated by the use of alternative 

modes such as the shuttle. Refuge-bound private vehicle traffic through Kilauea 

Town would be reduced somewhat, as some visitors would choose to park at the 

Hub facility and ride the shuttle. 

Alternative 5: Access by Mandatory Shuttle Only

This Alternative would eliminate public parking inside the Refuge (Kilauea Point), 

although it would still be allowed at the Overlook. Visitors would be directed to 

drive to the offsite Hub facility and to ride the shuttle to the Refuge. Signage on 

Kuhio Highway, in Kilauea Town and at the Refuge, and/or website information 

and ITS applications would “intercept” potential visitors, informing them to 

proceed first to the Hub facility. However, because a transfer to a shuttle bus is 

mandatory, this option would not appeal to some potential visitors. This may be 

offset by the anticipated provision of interpretive presentations on the shuttle, 

which serves to encourage visitors to use this mode of access. Other visitors 

would use private tour vans or taxis, and some may bicycle or walk from Kilauea 

Town, if facilities to accommodate those modes were made available.46

The result of this approach would be that demand for parking would shift from 

Kilauea Point to the offsite Hub facility and to the Overlook. It is assumed that 

adequate parking would be provided at the Hub to meet visitor demand well into 

the future, and at a minimum would address the 2025 planning horizon. If the 

Hub were located on Kuhio Highway, Refuge visitor traffic (in private vehicles) 

passing through Kilauea Town would be dramatically reduced as the vast 

majority of visitors would park at the Hub facility. If the Hub were located near 

the Kilauea Post Office, visitors would continue to drive through part of Kilauea 

Town unless a bypass road was built.47

So that the Overlook is not overwhelmed with visitors parking there and then 

attempting to walk directly into the Point (which is not currently permitted), 

 

46 One consideration for pedestrian access is that some people may try to park at the Overlook 

and walk to the Point, if such access were allowed. Visitors may effectively be able to avoid the 

fee booth, if fees are collected only at the Hub, and not at the Point. Therefore, operational and 

management considerations may make providing pedestrian access undesirable. 

47 A potential future by-pass road is being explored by others, and has been identified in the 

Kilauea Town Plan. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 52 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

pedestrian access controls must be instituted. Also, a parking management 

program establishing parking time limits or parking fees at the Overlook should 

be considered48. 

The growth in parking demand under Alternative 5 would be less than the 

projected demand data shown in Figures 5 and 6, reflecting a somewhat reduced 

demand due to the mandatory inter-modal transfer at the Hub, and the higher 

entry fee that would likely be required of all Refuge visitors to pay for the shuttle 

service whether or not they use transit to access the Refuge. However, as long 

as there is adequate parking at the Hub, growth in visitation to KPNWR could be 

accommodated under this Alternative. Onsite management of this Alternative is 

also expected to be easier and more cost effective than Alternative 4, especially 

if pedestrian access is not allowed into the Point. 

Overlook Parking

A potential issue under all of the transportation alternatives considered is the 

policy of unrestricted free parking at the Overlook, while simultaneously 

managing or restricting parking at the Point. As seen in Figures 7 and 8, parking 

congestion at the Point will become a larger problem over time. If the entry fee 

charged to all visitors is increased to pay for transit options, some visitors may try 

to park at the Overlook or along Kilauea Road and then walk into the Refuge. 

Private tour operators may also attempt to “cheat the system” by dropping off 

passengers at the Refuge gate, passively or actively encouraging them to access 

the Refuge on foot. This situation could result in traffic and/or safety problems 

that would need to be addressed by management policies and/or physical 

barriers. As stated earlier, the issue of Overlook parking and management 

policies should be examined in more detail during the next phase of the study. 

Photo 7. Visitors at the KPNWR Overlook (view from Kilauea Road)

 

48 Another concern was that visitors to the Overlook would attempt to board a shuttle bus into the 

Refuge (beyond the entrance gate). The ATS Study Team decided that any potential shuttle 

service that stops at the Overlook should only do so only after stopping at the Point. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 53 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Estimating Transit Demand 

The purpose of this section is to discuss the feasibility of operating various 

transit-based services for providing access to the Refuge, and to estimate the 

potential demand for, as well as the cost and feasibility of such services. Given 

the projected rise in visitor and parking demands at KPNWR, as outlined in the 

previous sections, KPNWR may need to pursue a long-term access strategy that 

offers an alternative to providing more parking at the Refuge. 

Several factors and considerations contributed to this analysis to estimate transit 

demand at KPNWR. The first part of this section describes such background 

information considered in the development of the estimation methodology, 

namely the following factors: transit experience at similar facilities; the impact of 

increased entry fees; methods that would encourage transit ridership at KPNWR; 

and peak season versus year-round transit service. The latter part of this section 

then describes the methods and results of estimating transit demand for 

Alternatives 4 and 5. 

Considerations for Estimating Transit Demand 

Transit Experience in the National Park System

There are a variety of studies addressing transit experience in the national parks, 

such as those available via the National Park Service website.49 This literature 

was consulted to identify situations that could serve as lessons for KPNWR. 

At Acadia National Park in Maine, 200,000 visitors (8.3% out of 2.4 million per 

year) use transit50. Other national parks that are phasing out the use of private 

vehicles and have either created or are in the process of creating vehiclerestriction areas (such as Zion, Yosemite, and Denali National Parks) have 

experienced a significant increase in shuttle usage.51

Bryce Canyon NP operates a free shuttle service, funded via allocations from 

entry fees paid by all visitors (excluding those that have park passes), and also 

allows private vehicles to enter the national park. There are two locations 

outside the Park where visitors can park and ride the shuttle bus, and visitors can 

also catch the shuttle from a number of locations within the Park. Either way, the 

 

49 National Park Service website, Alternative Transportation Program, 

<http://www.nps.gov/transportation/alt/mp.htm>. 50 Wilkinson, Todd. “Buses and Trains Amid Towering Cliffs: At More Parks, Visitors Leave the 

Car Behind.” Christian Science Monitor, May 2001. 51 There are differences in the shuttle systems operating in national parks, as compared to the 

transit alternatives being considered for KPNWR. Zion NP, for example, has a shuttle that leaves 

from a location inside the park; and also has a separate shuttle from Springdale into the park, 

where visitors can transfer to the internal circulating shuttle. Bryce Canyon NP has a shuttle that 

originates outside the park, and then circulates internally. KPNWR’s potential transit system 

would use shuttles originating outside the Refuge and dropping people off at one central location 

within the Refuge; no additional transportation is needed for internal circulation. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 54 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

cost to enter Bryce Canyon NP is $20 per carload of people (or $10 for visitors 

traveling alone). Use of the shuttle bus is voluntary and is provided to ease 

parking lot overcrowding, internal congestion, and air quality impacts, and to 

improve the visitor experience. Buses loop through the Park and make multiple, 

scheduled stops every 12 minutes. The shuttle system operates only during the 

peak summer months, Memorial Day through Labor Day. According to a Bryce 

Canyon NP official (Dan Cloud, June 2005 phone conversation), shuttle buses 

carry approximately 20-30 percent of the visitors to Bryce during the peak 

summer season. 

It is worth noting that parks such as Bryce have also had some difficulties 

implementing financially successful shuttle systems. According to the Alternative 

Transportation System Action Plan – Bryce Canyon National Park (NPS, 2004), 

the Bryce Canyon ATS program achieved its operational goals extremely well, 

although it was a dramatic financial failure.52 Bryce Canyon’s financial woes are 

due in part to poor contract planning and negotiation, combined with a downturn 

in visitation following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, but it is worth 

noting the risks associated with implementing an ATS system. Relevant transit 

recommendations from the Bryce Canyon experience include: be conservative 

with financial forecasts, limit contracts to short terms, and solicit for a staging 

area at no-cost if possible. 

Photo 8: Bryce Canyon Shuttle (NPS/Alice Wondrak Biel) 

 

52 National Park Service, Alternative Transportation System Action Plan, Bryce Canyon National 

Park, 2004. p. 2. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 55 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Impact of Increased Entry Fee on Visitation (to pay for Transit)

One method to underwrite the cost of operating a shuttle service at KPNWR 

would be to increase the Refuge entry fee for all visitors. Therefore, the impact 

on total visitation of increased entry fees was examined. 

As part of the PASA Completion Report (See Visitor Frequencies Summary, 

Table 20.), surveys were conducted to investigate Refuge visitors’ preferences 

and likelihood of visiting KPNWR under a variety of conditions. The current 

KPNWR entry fee of $3 is charged to all visitors over the age of 16 who do not 

have a pass such as Golden Eagle, etc. The surveys indicated that 85% of 

KPNWR visitors would be willing to pay a $5.00 entry fee, and about 50% would 

be willing to pay up to $12.00.53 Those surveyed also indicated there was value 

associated with a shuttle service that included an informational guide. When 

asked about their probability of visiting the Refuge under a variety of conditions, 

the mean (average) willingness-to-pay for a shuttle bus that included guided 

narration and the Refuge entry fee was an average of $3.75 higher than the 

willingness-to-pay the entry fee alone ($15.75 compared to $12.00).54

The PASA survey results indicate that implementing a modest increase in entry 

fees while offering a “free” shuttle service with guided narration, may actually be 

more attractive to visitors than the current situation requiring a $3 entry fee 

without the shuttle. Some people would choose not to visit the Refuge because 

of the increased entry fee, while others would be attracted to the idea of a transit 

ride with guided narration. Thus, while it is difficult to predict human behavior, a 

shuttle service with guided narration appears to be an attractive feature to 

potential Refuge visitors, possibly even offsetting the deterrent of a modest entry 

fee increase. 

Therefore, when estimating the transit demand under Alternatives 4 and 5, it is 

assumed that no reduction in visitation would occur with a modest rise in entry 

fees (to $5), as long as a shuttle service with guided narration is provided as an 

option. If the entry fee were raised above $5, the PASA survey results indicate 

that visitation would begin to drop. For the purposes of this Final Report, it is 

estimated that going from a $5 to a $6 entry fee would result in a 5 percent 

visitation reduction, while raising the entry fee to $7 would reduce demand by 10 

percent, and so on. To see the assumed effect of increased entry fees on 

KPNWR visitation, please see Appendix F. 

 

53 Sexton, N.R., S.C. Gillette, L. Koontz, S.C. Stewart, J. Loomis, and K. Wundrock, 2005, Visitor 

and Community Survey Results for Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge and Lighthouse: 

Completion Report, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Discipline, Open-File Report 

2005-1420, January 2006, Appendix page E-1. 

54 Ibid., page 4-7. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 56 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Methods to Encourage Transit Ridership at KPNWR

The number of potential visitors who would voluntarily use a shuttle to access the 

Refuge depends on many factors. These factors include: general public 

awareness of the service; ease of access from Kuhio Highway to the offsite 

transit Hub/parking area; services and amenities provided at the Hub (such as a 

bookstore); presence of on-board interpretive narration; shuttle cost (if not 

included in the entry fee); and the likelihood of not finding a parking space at the 

Refuge, among others. 

Methods to encourage transit ridership at KPNWR include using directional road 

signs and a website and/or ITS “real time“ information applications to direct all 

Refuge visitors to stop at the offsite Hub facility first. At the Hub, visitors would 

pay the entry fee, receive information about the Refuge, perhaps visit the 

bookstore and/or restroom, and then decide whether to board the shuttle bus or 

drive to the Point (Alternative 4 only). General information about parking and 

directions to the Hub should be provided on the KPNWR web page, and real-time 

information may also be made available online. When paying the entry fee, 

visitors would be informed about the free shuttle bus and the informational 

narration that will take place on board. Those riding the shuttle would show their 

entry fee receipt as they board. If permitted, as under Alternative 4, those who 

choose to drive into the Refuge could be asked to display their entry fee receipt 

on the dashboard of their car as proof of payment, insert a “pre-paid” card into a 

reader at the entrance gate, or give a parking token to the gate attendant. 

Further incentive to ride the shuttle bus could be mandated. For example, paying 

the entry fee at the Point may not be an option. Under this scenario, those 

driving to the Refuge entry gate without a fee receipt would not be permitted 

access into KPNWR, and would be directed back to the offsite transit Hub facility 

to pay the entry fee first. However, a drawback of not providing ticket vending 

services at the entrance gate or on the Point is that visitors would be forced to 

turn back, and may either proceed to the Hub, or may opt not to visit KPNWR at 

that time, either of which would generate negative impacts such as increased 

local vehicle trips, congestion/mobility, safety and air quality issues, reduced 

efficiencies and public satisfaction, and a reduction in the quality of the visitor 

experience. 

Peak Season vs. Year-Round Transit Service

In locations such as Bryce Canyon NP and Acadia NP, there are distinct peak 

seasons with very high demand during summer and very low demand in winter. 

As a result, shuttle bus service runs only during the peak, summer months. 

As shown in the Visitor Projection Report, at KPNWR the visitation difference 

between the peak winter-spring-summer season, and the off-peak fall season is 

relatively modest—about 17 percent. While it may be found that certain times of 

the year, the week, or even the day will have fluctuations in demand for transit 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 57 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

shuttle service, it does not appear from analyzing visitor projections for KPNWR 

that such fluctuations are explicitly seasonal, or particularly pronounced. 

Therefore, for purposes of this Final Report, it is assumed that a transit shuttle 

service would run year-round at KPNWR. 

Estimating Transit Demand at KPNWR 

As described previously, Alternatives 4 and 5 would involve operating a shuttle 

from an offsite parking area/transit Hub. In Alternative 4, the shuttle service is 

voluntary and public parking would still be allowed within the Refuge. Under 

Alternative 5, use of the KPNWR shuttle service (provided by FWS, other public 

or private entity) is mandatory, and parking would not be allowed at Kilauea Point 

(parking still permitted at the Overlook). 

As mentioned, Acadia NP (where 8 percent of the visitors use transit) and Bryce 

Canyon NP (where 20-30 percent use transit) are examples of what other federal 

lands are experiencing in terms of transit ridership during peak seasons. It 

should be noted that both of these parks are “destinations,” that visitors usually 

travel a long distance to visit and at which they are likely to spend at least one 

entire day. By contrast, KPNWR is smaller and easily accessible, and is just one 

of many possible destinations in a given day for visitors to Kauai. 

The inconvenience of parking in an offsite lot and taking a shuttle may 

proportionately deter more people at KPNWR than at Acadia and Bryce. 

Conversely, Refuge visitors surveyed by PASA researchers indicated that there 

was value associated with a shuttle that included guided narration; and that they 

would be willing to pay more for such a service. Therefore, the following 

discussion assumes that interpretive services would be an integral part of the 

Refuge transit system. 

The following transit demand projections for Alternatives 4 and 5 rely on the 

experience of national parks, as explained above55, results of the PASA 

visitor/resident surveys, and on the KPNWR visitation forecasts outlined in the 

first section of this Final Report. 

Alternative 4: Voluntary Shuttle with Private Vehicle Access

Transit demand under Alternative 4 will ultimately depend on many factors, such 

as the ability to raise public awareness directing them to the “intercept” Hub 

facility before driving directly to the Refuge; convenience, attractiveness and 

services offered at the offsite Hub; the cost of entry to the Refuge (including the 

shuttle); the presence of a knowledgeable guide on the shuttle; and the likelihood 

of available parking at the Refuge. Based on the PASA survey results and other 

factors and assumptions described previously, it is estimated that an optional 

(voluntary) shuttle service to KPNWR from an offsite Hub facility would likely be 

 

55 No similar transit experience is available for analysis from other FWS facilities. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 58 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

used by approximately 10 to 20 percent of visitors to KPNWR (who would 

otherwise drive to the Refuge). 

During the peak season, parking at the Point is more likely to be full, and 

therefore shuttle ridership would likely be higher (closer to 20 percent). During 

the off-peak season (fall), ridership would likely be lower (closer to 10 percent) 

due to the increased likelihood of available parking within the Refuge. 

The following basic assumptions were made about Alternative 4 when estimating 

transit ridership. 

• An offsite Hub facility would be developed in a convenient location on 

Kuhio Highway or near the Post Office in Kilauea Town; providing ample 

parking and a variety of services and amenities that Refuge visitors would 

find attractive. 

• All potential visitors would be directed to the Hub facility first, where they 

would receive information about the Refuge (including real-time parking 

availability), pay the entry fee, and be given the opportunity to ride the free 

shuttle with guided narration. 

• The Refuge entry fee would be increased to offset the cost of operating 

the shuttle system. This alternative assumes the same entry fee would be 

charged to all visitors, regardless of whether they take the shuttle or drive. 

• A higher entry fee would deter some potential visitors, while the shuttle 

with guided narration would attract other visitors who may not have visited 

KPNWR without the shuttle/narration service, resulting in no net change in 

total visitors anticipated (at the $5 entry fee level). 

• Approximately 10-20 percent of visitors would choose to use the “free,” 

voluntary shuttle service with guided narration; with a higher percentage of 

visitors using transit during the peak season and fewer during the off-peak 

season56. 

• Depending on the location of the transit Hub, the remaining 80-90% of 

visitors who choose to drive to the Refuge, rather than using the shuttle, 

would drive through Kilauea Town, resulting in continued traffic impacts.57

Transit demand projections were calculated by multiplying the mid-range person 

demand (shown in Table 2) by 10, 15, and 20 percent (transit mode splits) to 

represent the range of possible ridership scenarios. The results are shown in 

Table 7 for the peak season (winter-spring-summer) and in Table 8 for the offpeak season (fall). 

 

56 Visitors would be supplied with real-time information, at the Hub, about the current availability 

of parking at the Point. It is assumed more people would choose to use the shuttle when parking 

at the Point is scarce. 

57 Real-time Refuge parking information, provided to visitors at the Hub or en route via ITS 

applications, may moderate or distribute such impacts. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 59 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Table 7. KPNWR Transit Demand Forecasts (Daily, Peak Season)58

Alternative 4 – Voluntary Shuttle Plus Vehicle Parking at the Point 

(in number of shuttle bus riders) 

Year 10% Transit 

Ridership 

Scenario 

15% Transit 

Ridership 

Scenario 

20% Transit 

Ridership 

Scenario 

2010 (5-year) 70 105 140 

2015 (10-year) 75 113 150 

2025 (20-year) 86 129 173 

Table 8. KPNWR Transit Demand Forecasts (Daily, Off- Peak Season) 

Alternative 4 – Voluntary Shuttle Plus Vehicle Parking at the Point 

(in number of shuttle bus riders) 

Year 10% Transit 

Ridership 

Scenario 

15% Transit 

Ridership 

Scenario 

20% Transit 

Ridership 

Scenario 

2010 (5-year) 58 87 116 

2015 (10-year) 62 93 125 

2025 (20-year) 72 107 143 

An estimate of annual ridership for Alternative 4 is shown in Table 9 below, and 

was calculated by applying the 10, 15, and 20 percent mode splits to the midrange annual visitation rates shown in Table 1. 

Table 9. KPNWR Transit Demand Forecasts (Annual) 

Alternative 4 – Voluntary Shuttle Plus Vehicle Parking at the Point 

(in number of shuttle bus riders) 

Year 10% Transit 

Ridership 

Scenario 

15% Transit 

Ridership 

Scenario 

20% Transit 

Ridership 

Scenario 

2010 (5-year) 23,050 34,575 46,100 

2015 (10-year) 24,710 37,065 49,420 

2025 (20-year) 28,390 42,585 56,780 

 

58 Assumes $5 entry fee (includes shuttle to Refuge or parking at Refuge). Visitation and 

therefore ridership would be slightly lower at higher entry fee levels. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 60 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

It should be noted that under Alternative 4, traffic and safety issues on the 

Refuge entrance road would need to be examined in more detail. If two-way 

vehicle traffic was simultaneously allowed by both shuttle buses and private 

vehicles, the entrance road may need to be widened. Alternatively, an ITS 

solution may be developed that would facilitate alternating one-way traffic. This 

issue should be examined in more detail during the next phase of the study. 

Alternative 5: Access by Mandatory Shuttle Only

This Alternative would limit access to the Refuge to permitted vehicles only, 

including shuttle vehicles and other official vehicles. Based on the public 

response to PASA survey questions shown in Figure 9 below (third item), it can 

be estimated how many potential visitors would choose not to visit KPNWR, if 

use of a shuttle service were required. PASA investigators suggested that the 

number of people who would decide not to visit because of the transit-only 

access entry option would be similar to the “unlikely to return” response rate of 

24% (PASA staff, August 2005 phone conversation). Given the potential added 

time and inconvenience associated with using a shuttle, a reduction in demand 

by this amount seems reasonable. However, as previously explained, it is 

assumed that visitors are somewhat more likely to visit the Refuge if provided 

with onboard guided narration. Thus, the actual reduction from the obligatory 

transit ride would be less than 24%. In order to calculate transit demand under 

this Alternative, it was estimated that implementing a mandatory shuttle bus 

system that includes guided narration would reduce overall visitation by 15%, 

with an entry fee of $5. As mentioned earlier, raising the entry fee above $5 

would begin to have an impact on visitation. Since prices above $5 are likely 

needed to pay for a transit system, ridership projections were made for entry fee 

levels ranging from $5 to $11. 

The following assumptions were made to estimate transit ridership under 

Alternative 5: 

• An offsite Hub facility would be in a convenient location with ample parking 

and a variety of attractive Refuge visitor services and amenities. 

• Visitors would be directed to the offsite Hub facility first, where they would 

receive information about the Refuge, pay the entry fee, and be directed to 

ride the free shuttle service with guided narration. 

• The entry fee would be increased to offset the cost of operating the shuttle 

system and would be the same for all visitors. 

• Mandatory use of a shuttle service (with no public parking at the Point) 

would result in approximately 15% fewer total visitors, as described above. 

• Raising the entry fee above $5 would also begin to negatively affect 

visitation. Therefore, ridership projections were generated for entry fees 

of $6, $7, $8, $9, $10, and $11, as well as $5. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 61 KP

September 2006

Figure 9. Likelihood of Visiting KPNWR versus Management Decisions 

Source: USGS-PASA, May 2005. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 62 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Transit demand projections for Alternative 5 were calculated based on the 

assumptions above, by taking the visitor projections in Table 1, and reducing the 

numbers by 15% to account for the negative reaction by some to mandatory use 

of a shuttle. Further reductions were made to account for possible increases in 

entry fees at the following rates (above $5): a $6 entry fee would reduce 

visitation by 5 percent, a $7 entry would reduce visitation by 10 percent, an $8 

entry fee would reduce visitation by 15 percent when compared to the $5 entry 

fee, etc. These rates were developed based on results of PASA visitor and 

resident surveys that predicted how much people would be willing to pay for entry 

fees that included the shuttle and guided narration. See Appendix E for details. 

The resulting ridership projections are shown in Table 10 for the peak season 

(winter-spring-summer) and in Table 11 for the off-peak season (fall). Annual 

ridership projections for Alternative 5 are shown in Table 12. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 63 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Table 10. KPNWR Transit Demand Forecasts (Daily, Peak Season) 

Alternative 5 - Access by Shuttle Only 

(number of transit shuttle riders) 

Low 

Growth Rate 

Mid-Range 

Growth Rate 

High 

Growth Rate 

Year $5 Entry Fee 

2010 (5-year) 584 595 619 

2015 (10-year) 614 638 691 

2025 (20-year) 678 734 858 

$6 Entry Fee 

2010 (5-year) 560 572 595 

2015 (10-year) 589 613 663 

2025 (20-year) 651 704 824 

$7 Entry Fee 

2010 (5-year) 537 548 570 

2015 (10-year) 564 587 635 

2025 (20-year) 596 675 790 

$8 Entry Fee 

2010 (5-year) 514 524 545 

2015 (10-year) 540 562 608 

2025 (20-year) 596 646 755 

$9 Entry Fee 

2010 (5-year) 490 500 520 

2015 (10-year) 515 536 580 

2025 (20-year) 569 616 721 

$10 Entry Fee 

2010 (5-year) 467 476 495 

2015 (10-year) 491 511 552 

2025 (20-year) 542 587 687 

$11 Entry Fee 

2010 (5-year) 444 453 471 

2015 (10-year) 466 485 525 

2025 (20-year) 515 557 652 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 64 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Table 11. KPNWR Transit Demand Forecasts (Daily, Off- Peak Season) 

Alternative 5 - Access by Shuttle Only 

(number of transit shuttle riders) 

Low 

Growth Rate 

Mid-Range 

Growth Rate 

High 

Growth Rate 

Year $5 Entry Fee 

2010 (5-year) 487 497 517 

2015 (10-year) 512 532 576 

2025 (20-year) 565 612 716 

$6 Entry Fee 

2010 (5-year) 467 477 496 

2015 (10-year) 491 511 553 

2025 (20-year) 543 587 687 

$7 Entry Fee 

2010 (5-year) 448 457 475 

2015 (10-year) 471 490 530 

2025 (20-year) 520 563 659 

$8 Entry Fee 

2010 (5-year) 428 437 455 

2015 (10-year) 450 468 507 

2025 (20-year) 497 538 630 

$9 Entry Fee 

2010 (5-year) 409 417 434 

2015 (10-year) 430 447 484 

2025 (20-year) 475 514 601 

$10 Entry Fee 

2010 (5-year) 390 397 413 

2015 (10-year) 409 426 461 

2025 (20-year) 452 489 573 

$11 Entry Fee 

2010 (5-year) 370 377 393 

2015 (10-year) 389 405 438 

2025 (20-year) 430 465 544 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 65 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Table 12. KPNWR Transit Demand Forecasts (Annual) 

Alternative 5 - Access by Shuttle Only 

(number of transit shuttle riders) 

Low 

 Growth Rate 

Mid-Range 

Growth Rate 

High 

Growth Rate 

Year $5 Entry Fee 

2010 (5-year) 192,000 196,000 204,000 

2015 (10-year) 202,000 210,000 228,000 

2025 (20-year) 223,000 241,000 282,000 

$6 Entry Fee 

2010 (5-year) 184,000 188,000 196,000 

2015 (10-year) 194,000 202,000 218,000 

2025 (20-year) 214,000 232,000 271,000 

$7 Entry Fee 

2010 (5-year) 177,000 180,000 187,000 

2015 (10-year) 180,000 193,000 209,000 

2025 (20-year) 205,000 222,000 260,000 

$8 Entry Fee 

2010 (5-year) 169,000 172,000 179,000 

2015 (10-year) 178,000 185,000 200,000 

2025 (20-year) 196,000 212,000 249,000 

$9 Entry Fee 

2010 (5-year) 161,000 165,000 171,000 

2015 (10-year) 170,000 176,000 191,000 

2025 (20-year) 187,000 203,000 237,000 

$10 Entry Fee 

2010 (5-year) 154,000 157,000 163,000 

2015 (10-year) 161,000 168,000 182,000 

2025 (20-year) 178,000 193,000 226,000 

$11 Entry Fee 

2010 (5-year) 146,000 149,000 155,000 

2015 (10-year) 153,000 160,000 173,000 

2025 (20-year) 169,000 183,000 215,000 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 66 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Transit Service Operating Cost Estimates 

Transit shuttle service for KPNWR could be provided using various types of 

vehicles, providing different levels of customer service at widely varying costs 

(See Alternatives 4 and 5.). Vehicles types could include bus, tram, historicreplica trolley, van, or other types yet to be determined. Various propulsion 

systems have been discussed, including hybrid diesel-electric, hybrid gaselectric, and so on. The decision for what size and type of vehicle is best-suited 

for KPNWR will be examined in later phases of this Study. 

For the purpose of this current analysis, preliminary cost estimates were made 

for operating a transit shuttle service at KPNWR by examining two basic options, 

described below. 

• Shuttle Bus Operation by KPNWR, with capital costs paid by others. This 

became known as the Low Cost Estimate. 

• Contract Shuttle Bus Service with a Private Company. This became 

known as the High Cost Estimate. 

Transit Operation by KPNWR (Low Cost Estimate)

This option would require KPNWR to purchase or lease the necessary number of 

vehicles to facilitate transit service from a potential Hub location to the Refuge. 

Based on discussions with CFLHD, and FWS, it may be possible to receive 

discretionary grants for the capital costs associated with a shuttle system. These 

costs, paid by others, could include purchasing the vehicles, land and related 

infrastructure development costs for a Hub facility, building a maintenance 

facility, ticket booth and associated visitor services at the Hub, and installing 

intelligent transportation systems (ITS) such as real-time variable message 

boards. 

For this estimate, the capital costs described above were specifically excluded 

from the cost estimates. It was assumed that maintenance, fuel, driver, and 

other operating costs would be the responsibility of KPNWR, and would need to 

be covered by increased Refuge entry fees (above the current $3), a portion of 

which would be dedicated to transit operation costs (for Alternatives 4 and 5). 

Table 13 below provides a sample cost estimate for operating a standard 25-

passenger shuttle bus in 2005 dollars.59

 

59 Based on a phone conversation with Transit Sales International, 12-October-2005. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 67 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Table 13. Sample Operating Costs per Bus – Owned and Operated by 

KPNWR (Low Cost Estimate) 

Input Cost 

Annual 

Cost 

(rounded) 

Notes 

Fuel $1 per mile $26,400 Calculation based on: $3 per 

gallon, 3 mpg, and 75 miles 

per day. 

Vehicle 

Maintenance and 

Storage 

$.50 per mile $13,200 Includes maintenance (but 

NOT construction) of a 

facility to store and conduct 

minor maintenance on 

vehicles.60 

Driver $170 per day $60,000 Includes benefits and 

overhead. 

Administration $20,000 per year $20,000 - 

ITS, Information 

and Signage 

$3,500 per year $3,500 Includes signage and ITS 

operating costs only. (ITS 

capital costs are assumed to 

be provided by others.) 

SUB TOTAL $123,600 - 

30% Contingency $37,000 - 

GRAND TOTAL $160,100 - 

Using these cost estimates, plus adding a contingency of 30%, results in a perbus operating cost of about $160,000 per year, or about $450 per day.61

A mid-sized, 25-passenger bus was selected as the prototype vehicle for this 

analysis, because it provides a balance of size and needed passenger capacity, 

while minimizing the need for onsite physical modifications at the Refuge to 

accommodate bus access, when compared to larger buses. 

It should be noted that under Alternative 4, two-way vehicle traffic on the Refuge 

entry road is assumed to be allowed for simultaneous use by shuttle buses and 

official and private vehicles. To accommodate these uses, a signalization system 

(ITS application) may need to be implemented to reverse and control the flow of 

traffic, limiting flow to one direction at a time and promoting safer ingress/egress. 

Under Alternative 5, when buses can be scheduled to avoid simultaneous twoway use of the entrance road, these measures are less critical. In both 

Alternatives, it is assumed that emergency and other official vehicles would have 

a means to manually control (override) the signalization system and/or 

communicate with the shuttle drivers as needed. 

 

60 Major and regular maintenance is included in the cost figures, but is assumed to be conducted 

by others in a different location (e.g., gas station, etc.). 61 Based on 352 days of service per year. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 68 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

It may be advantageous to use other types/sizes and/or a mix of vehicles to 

better serve the projected demand and unique physical and cultural setting at 

KPNWR. For example, it would be possible to use 14-passenger vans (or similar 

sized vehicles) to serve the projected transit demand under Alternative 4. Use of 

such smaller vehicles would not require changes to the access road and would 

also be less expensive to operate, on both an individual and system basis, for 

this alternative. As well, there could be interest by FWS in using other types of 

vehicles, such as an historic-replica trolley bus, an alternative-fuel vehicle, open 

air tram, etc. This could involve extra costs or cost savings, depending on the 

type and size of vehicle used. The Transit Feasibility Matrices (Tables 15-17) 

compare different size vehicles for key performance and cost metrics. These 

and other options could be examined in more detail during the next phase of the 

study. 

Contracted Transit Service (High Cost Estimate)

Based on quotes provided by Polynesian Adventure Tours (Appendix F), it is 

estimated that transit/shuttle bus service could be provided through a private 

company for about $125 per hour62. That estimate amounts to an eight-hour 

daily operating cost of approximately $1,000 per day63, while the yearly cost 

would be about $360,000 per year, per bus. This amount was used as the high 

cost estimate. 

Transit Operating Cost Estimates Summary

A cost estimate comparison between two transit options is shown in Table 14

below. There is a wide range between the low cost estimate and high cost 

estimate. The low cost estimate assumes government operation of the transit 

system and availability of federal or other funding for initial capital costs 

(purchase of vehicles, construction of a Hub maintenance facility and 

appurtenances). The high cost estimate is based on current commercial rates 

provided by Polynesian Adventure Tours (See Appendix F.). 

Based on preliminary estimates described above, it would cost about $320,000 to 

$720,000 per year to operate a two-vehicle shuttle bus transit system 

(25passenger vehicles) for KPNWR, and about $640,000 to $1.4 million for a 

four-bus system (25-passenger vehicles) per year.64 It appears to be less 

expensive for FWS to buy vehicles and assume the cost of operation and 

 

62 According to Polynesian Adventure Tours, $113.50 was the quote for the bus and driver on 

Kauai. An additional $11.50 per hour is assumed for administrative costs, ITS operations, 

signage, and contingency. Note that Polynesian Adventure Tours indicated the corresponding 

cost on Oahu would be roughly $92.50 per hour, which is similar to operating cost for the public 

transit system in Honolulu (TheBus) which is roughly $98 per hour. 

63 Although KPNWR is open only 6 hours per day, cost estimates include vehicle prep and travel 

time to and from the Refuge, which would be charged by a private company. 

64 Costs were derived by extrapolating from the cost of operating one bus. No economy of scale 

was factored into the cost for the bus system operation. However, some savings may accrue for 

operation of multiple buses, such as savings in administrative costs. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 69 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

maintenance of a shuttle system, than contracting with a private company to 

provide a shuttle service to the Overlook and Refuge. However, there may be 

other benefits from using contracted services. For example, there would likely be 

cost savings due to reduced transit service coordination and management time 

required by Refuge staff. Contracting transit service may also minimize the risks 

and liability to FWS, by not having to operate the transit system directly. Such 

factors will require management and policy decisions for FWS to consider when 

comparing the costs of both options. A more refined cost estimate should be 

developed during the next phase of the study. 

Table 14. KPNWR Shuttle Bus System Cost Estimates (2005 Dollars) 

Annual Estimated 

Operating Cost Number 

of 

Buses 

Daily 

Passenger 

Capacity (25-

passenger bus)

Hourly 

Capacity

Headway 

between 

Buses 

(minutes) 

Low Cost 

Estimate1

High Cost 

Estimate2

2 450 75 20 $320,000 $720,000 

3 675 113 13 $480,000 $1,080,000 

4 900 150 10 $640,000 $1,440,000 

Notes: 

1. Estimated cost of government operating vehicles. Assumes capital costs are covered by 

others. 

2. Estimated cost of contracting bus service with a private company. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 70 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Feasibility of Conceptual Transportation Alternatives 

at KPNWR 

A cursory examination of financial feasibility of the five conceptual transportation 

alternatives was conducted as part of this ATS Study effort. 

Alternative 1: No-Build

The No-Build Alternative assumes a continuation of the policies and conditions 

currently in place at KPNWR. No fiscal investments in transportation services or 

infrastructure, on- or offsite are anticipated with this alternative, beyond routine 

maintenance of existing facilities. On-going costs associated with this No-Build 

Alternative include diversion of staff resources to deal with increasing traffic 

congestion and visitor safety issues, reduced visitor satisfaction due to parking 

shortages, reduced community satisfaction due to increased traffic through town. 

From a financial perspective, this alternative is feasible as the costs listed above 

are generally absorbable within the current management structure, or are paid by 

others (community residents, visitors). Entry fees may need to be raised to keep 

up with inflation, but not likely as a result of this alternative. 

Alternative 2: Minor Improvements, Transportation Systems Management (TSM) 

and Transportation Demand Management (TDM)

This Alternative would require a capital investment in physical infrastructure to 

improve the efficiency of the current parking supply, and to implement 

operational strategies to help manage visitor demand. Possible strategies 

include re-striping paved areas, and/or marking non-paved parking areas to 

promote efficient parking patterns; providing variable message signs (using ITS 

technology) to indicate “real-time” parking availability; regular updates to the 

FWS/KPNWR web page, implementing parking charges (meters) or time limits, 

and others. Each of these strategies would require an investment of staff and 

money, and could be implemented all at once or, more likely, phased over time. 

Some strategies, such as parking meters, could actually generate revenue for the 

Refuge, depending on rates. 

Given the wide variety of potential strategies that fall into this alternative, it is not 

possible to determine exact cost. However, most of these strategies could be 

implemented for a relatively modest investment, and a small increase in the entry 

fee would likely cover the cost. In addition, the increased efficiency and effective 

capacity this would add to the Refuge could provide cost savings by allowing 

staff to focus on matters other than parking control and access management. 

Therefore, it is reasonable to say this alternative is financially feasible. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 71 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Alternative 3: Moderate Improvements to Increase Capacity

This alternative would involve the construction of additional parking spaces, 

possibly including the paving of currently unpaved areas, and widening the entry 

road to accommodate more and/or larger vehicles, in addition to possible 

strategies identified in the previous alternative. General cost estimates for these 

types of improvements are shown in Appendix C. A modest increase in the entry 

fee may be required to pay for the improvements, but based on PASA research 

(visitor and resident surveys), this would have only a minor impact on visitation. 

It is likely that the incremental increase in visitation these physical improvements 

would facilitate, combined with the relatively moderate cost of the improvements 

(paving and striping), indicates that this alternative is financially feasible65. 

Alternative 4: Voluntary Shuttle with Private Vehicle Access

Generally, fiscal feasibility of the transit alternatives is established by comparing 

estimated costs of operating a shuttle system with estimated revenue at various 

Refuge entry fee levels. That is, to be feasible, revenue must cover the costs of 

a system designed to meet the estimated ridership. Transit feasibility matrices 

comparing a list of options, including costs, ridership projections, and resulting 

feasibility for 2010, 2015, and 2025 are shown in Tables 15, 16, and 17, 

respectively. The matrices show how various assumptions such as entry fee, 

vehicle number and size, trip frequency, daily and hourly capacity, ridership, and 

operating cost can combine to form transit options that may or may not be 

feasible. As can be seen in the matrices in Tables 15, 16, and 17, either 

Transportation Alternative 4 or 5 could be feasible under the right combination of 

entry fees and vehicle size in each target year. 

Alternative 4 incorporates a voluntary transit shuttle system to the Refuge from 

an offsite Hub facility, which would offer ample parking and other amenities that 

visitors may find attractive. All potential visitors to the Refuge would first be 

directed to the Hub facility to pay entry fees, which would be the same amount 

for all visitors, regardless of how they reach the Refuge66. Although they would 

not be obligated to use the shuttle, visitors may find the convenience and 

amenities, such as the on-board interpretive narration by a volunteer docent, to 

be compelling. It is estimated that 10-20% of all visitors would choose to use the 

shuttle under this alternative67; resulting in about 70 to 140 visitors using the 

shuttle during an average peak-season day in 2010, with about 14 to 28 riders 

 

65 That does not mean, however, this alternative would be desirable or even acceptable. Many of 

the improvements discussed here would require the paving of land that is currently dedicated to 

species habitat. The environmental cost of this alternative would be examined in a future phase 

of this study. 

66 It should be noted that all revenue estimates include a reduction in anticipated fees to account 

for visitors under 16 and those with passes such as Golden Eagle, etc., who would not be 

charged to enter the Refuge nor to ride the shuttle. 

67 At the Hub, visitors would be made aware of current parking conditions at the Refuge using 

real-time information. It is estimated that more visitors would choose to ride the free shuttle on 

days when parking is less likely to be available at the Point. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 72 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

during the daily peak hour of 11:00 a.m. to noon. By 2025, projections increase 

those numbers to 86 to 173 daily peak-season riders, and about 17 to 34 peakhour riders. 

A major assumption is that part of the revenue collected from entry fees would be 

used to underwrite the operation of the transit shuttle system. With the on-board 

narration provided by a knowledgeable docent, the “free” shuttle would be seen 

as attractive by many visitors. As more visitors use this option, impacts on the 

existing parking, access/circulation, and related FWS staffing activities at the 

Refuge; negative impacts to the Refuge’s natural resources; and transportation 

impacts to the Kilauea Town community would be reduced proportionally. There 

may also be a corresponding reduction in the consumption of fossil fuels and an 

incremental benefit to local air quality. 

Preliminary cost estimates for operating a transit shuttle system were outlined in 

preceding sections of this Final Report, assuming the use of a 25-passenger bus 

(Gillig Spirit, 27 feet long). It is now understood that using a vehicle of this size 

on the narrow entrance road may prove difficult if general, two-way traffic is 

allowed to continue (which is one of the key assumptions of Alternative 4). 

However, it is not necessary to use a vehicle of this size for Alternative 4, and as 

shown in Tables 15 through 17, it would in fact be more efficient to use a smaller 

shuttle, such as a 14-passenger van or a vehicle providing similar capacity and 

operating cost. A 14-passenger vehicle, operating on 20-minute headways68, 

provides a daily capacity of 252 riders, and an hourly capacity of 42. This 

capacity is well in excess of expected visitor demand, even in 2025. 

In all three future years examined (2010, 2015, and 2025), operating 14-

passenger vans on 20-minute headways was found to be a feasible option for 

Alternative 4 with a $5 entry fee, using the low-cost estimate (transit service 

provided directly by FWS). When assuming the high-cost estimate (shuttle 

service provided by a private contractor), this transit scenario was found to be 

feasible at a $7 entry fee69. 

It should be noted there could be additional operating costs and issues 

associated with Alternative 4 that should be identified, including public parking 

(and associated management issues) at two locations (the Hub and the Point) 

 

68 One bus every 20 minutes. 69 As noted earlier in the Report, the cost estimates assume an offsite Hub facility would be 

located on Kuhio Highway. That location was assumed because it is further from the Refuge than 

the alternative location (near the Post Office), and would therefore provide a more conservative 

(more expensive) cost estimate. However, if the potential alternate site were used, it would result 

in operational cost savings. As can be seen in each of the Feasibility Matrices, a potential Hub 

site in Kilauea Town near the Post Office, translates into an estimated 30-minute round trip to 

KPNWR for the shuttle, compared with 40 minutes for the Kuhio Highway site. That round-trip 

time savings results in operational cost savings, and makes Alternative 4 and 5 more feasible, 

compared with the Kuhio Highway Hub site. It should be noted that these cost estimates are 

preliminary, and more detailed cost estimates may need to be conducted during the next phase of 

the study. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 73 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

rather than just one. Additionally, some of the same parking issues present now 

(overflow problems, waiting for vacancies, traffic through Kilauea Town, etc.) are 

likely to continue. 

Alternative 5: Access by Mandatory Shuttle Only

Alternative 5 would require Refuge visitors to park at an offsite Hub facility, and 

transfer to a shuttle. No private vehicle parking will be allowed at the Point, 

although limited parking would still be available at the Overlook. However, 

parking at the Overlook would not facilitate access into the Point, as pedestrians 

are not permitted access through the gate into the Refuge. Some potential 

visitors may decide not to visit the Refuge because of the mandatory transfer to 

the shuttle, but as previously stated most visitors (about 85%) would still choose 

to visit the Refuge. As a result, based on the mid-range growth estimate, a 

transit shuttle service would need to accommodate about 476 to 595 daily visitors 

during the peak season in 2010, including 95 to 119 visitors during the peak hour 

(11:00 a.m. to noon), depending on the entry fee imposed. By 2025, 587 to 734 

visitors will be using the shuttle bus each day during the peak season, and 117 to 

147 during the peak hour. 

That level of anticipated ridership could be accommodated using different size 

vehicles. In Alternative 5, private vehicles would be prohibited from using the 

entrance road into the Refuge (the Point); and as a result, there would not be 

operational problems using a larger vehicle on the entrance road, such as a 25-

passenger (or possibly larger) bus. The most cost-effective solution (for each 

year examined – 2010, 2015 and 2025) is to use large vehicles (40-passenger, 

for example) operating every 20 minutes. That scenario provides an all-day 

capacity of 720 riders and a peak-hour capacity of 120. That would provide 

adequate capacity for 2010 and 2015, but by 2025 the Refuge would need to run 

buses more frequently. Expected revenue from entry fees would be adequate to 

run this system with a $6 entry fee, assuming the low-cost estimate, and a $10 

entry fee with the high-cost estimate. 

Another way to increase feasibility of a transit shuttle system would be to locate 

the transit Hub closer to the Refuge. For the feasibility analysis described above, 

the Hub is assumed to be located on Kuhio Highway. If the Hub were instead 

located near the Post Office site, as has been discussed, that would make the 

system more viable by decreasing the estimated round-trip time from 40 minutes 

to 30 minutes. Under this scenario, operating 25-passenger vehicles every 10 

minutes was found to be viable in 2010 and 2015 with an entry fee of $7 with the 

low-cost estimate and $10 under the high-cost estimate. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 74 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Conclusions about Feasibility of the Five Conceptual Transportation Alternatives

Based on preliminary data presented in this Final Report, any of the five 

conceptual transportation alternatives appears to be financially viable. That is, a 

portion of the entry fees (set at the appropriate level) can cover the costs of 

making the identified improvements and/or operating a Refuge transit shuttle 

system that is able to serve expected visitor demand. It should be noted in 

particular that the feasibility of Alternatives 4 and 5 is based on examining the 

operational costs only and that an assumption is made that discretionary grants 

can be obtained to construct the Hub and provide other capital costs as needed. 

These calculations are preliminary, and detailed financial estimates may need to 

be made during the anticipated next phase of the ATS Study effort. In that 

phase, other types and sizes of vehicles such as rubber-tired historic-replica 

trolleys or open air trams and vehicles that operate on alternative fuels, should 

be evaluated; and, additional details of all options still under consideration should 

be delineated for proper screening and evaluation. Other options, such as using 

an expanded parking area at the Overlook for overflow parking during peak 

periods, should be examined during the anticipated next phase. A summary of 

key findings, recommendations based on findings to date, and a list of issues to 

be resolved and next steps can be found after the Transit Feasibility Matrices. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 75 

September 2006 

Table 15. Transit Feasibility Matrix - 2010 

Transit Vehicle 

Option

Conceptual 

Transportation 

Alternative

Potential Hub 

Location

Hub-toRefuge 

Round 

Trip Time 

(minutes)

Refuge 

Entry Fee 

Options

Amount of 

Entry Fee 

dedicated 

to Transit 

Operation

Projected 

Annual 

Refuge 

Visitation in 

2010

Projected 

Annual 

Revenue 

for Transit 

(6)

Peak-Hour 

Peak 

Season 

Riders

Daily Peak 

Season 

Riders

Annual 

Riders

Vehicle 

Capacity 

(seated)

Number of 

Vehicles 

in 

Operation

Headway 

(minutes 

between 

vehicles)

Peak-Hour 

Capacity

Daily 

Capacity

Low Cost 

Estimate 

(2010$)

Feasible? 

(Is revenue 

greater 

than Low 

Cost 

Estimate?)

High Cost 

Estimate 

(2010$)

4 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $5 $2 231,000 $369,000 14-28 70-140 35,000 25 2 20 75 450 $353,306 Yes $794,938 

4 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $6 $3 221,000 $531,000 14-27 67-135 33,000 25 2 20 75 450 $353,306 Yes $794,938 4 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $7 $4 212,000 $679,000 13-25 64-129 32,000 25 2 20 75 450 $353,306 Yes $794,938 4 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $8 $5 203,000 $811,000 12-24 62-123 30,000 25 2 20 75 450 $353,306 Yes $794,938 

4 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $9 $6 194,000 $929,000 12-24 59-118 29,000 25 2 20 75 450 $353,306 Yes $794,938 5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $5 $2 196,000 $313,000 119 595 196,000 25 4 10 150 900 $706,612 No $1,589,876 

5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $6 $3 188,000 $451,000 114 572 188,000 25 3 13 113 675 $529,959 No $1,192,407 

5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $7 $4 180,000 $577,000 110 548 180,000 25 3 13 113 675 $529,959 Yes $1,192,407 5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $8 $5 172,000 $690,000 105 524 172,000 25 3 13 113 675 $529,959 Yes $1,192,407 5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $9 $6 165,000 $790,000 100 500 165,000 25 3 13 113 675 $529,959 Yes $1,192,407 5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $10 $7 157,000 $878,000 95 476 157,000 25 3 13 113 675 $529,959 Yes $1,192,407 5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $11 $8 149,000 $953,000 91 453 149,000 25 3 13 113 675 $529,959 Yes $1,192,407 4 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $5 $2 231,000 $369,000 14-28 70-140 35,000 14 2 20 42 252 $264,979 Yes $596,204 4 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $6 $3 221,000 $531,000 14-27 67-135 33,000 14 2 20 42 252 $264,979 Yes $596,204 4 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $7 $4 212,000 $679,000 13-25 64-129 32,000 14 2 20 42 252 $264,979 Yes $596,204 4 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $8 $5 203,000 $811,000 12-24 62-123 30,000 14 2 20 42 252 $264,979 Yes $596,204 4 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $9 $6 194,000 $929,000 12-24 59-118 29,000 14 2 20 42 252 $264,979 Yes $596,204 5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $5 $2 196,000 $313,000 119 595 196,000 14 6 7 126 756 $794,938 No $1,788,611 

5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $6 $3 188,000 $451,000 114 572 188,000 14 6 7 126 756 $794,938 No $1,788,611 5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $7 $4 180,000 $577,000 110 548 180,000 14 6 7 126 756 $794,938 No $1,788,611 5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $8 $5 172,000 $690,000 105 524 172,000 14 5 8 105 630 $662,448 Yes $1,490,509 5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $9 $6 165,000 $790,000 100 500 165,000 14 5 8 105 630 $662,448 Yes $1,490,509 5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $10 $7 157,000 $878,000 95 476 157,000 14 5 8 105 630 $662,448 Yes $1,490,509 5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $11 $8 149,000 $953,000 91 453 149,000 14 4 10 84 504 $529,959 Yes $1,192,407 4 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $5 $2 231,000 $369,000 14-28 70-140 35,000 20 2 20 60 360 $300,310 Yes $675,697 

4 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $6 $3 221,000 $531,000 14-27 67-135 33,000 20 2 20 60 360 $300,310 Yes $675,697 4 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $7 $4 212,000 $679,000 13-25 64-129 32,000 20 2 20 60 360 $300,310 Yes $675,697 4 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $8 $5 203,000 $811,000 12-24 62-123 30,000 20 2 20 60 360 $300,310 Yes $675,697 4 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $9 $6 194,000 $929,000 12-24 59-118 29,000 20 2 20 60 360 $300,310 No $675,697 5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $5 $2 196,000 $313,000 119 595 196,000 20 4 10 120 720 $600,620 No $1,351,395 

5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $6 $3 188,000 $451,000 114 572 188,000 20 4 10 120 720 $600,620 No $1,351,395 5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $7 $4 180,000 $577,000 110 548 180,000 20 4 10 120 720 $600,620 No $1,351,395 5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $8 $5 172,000 $690,000 105 524 172,000 20 4 10 120 720 $600,620 Yes $1,351,395 5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $9 $6 165,000 $790,000 100 500 165,000 20 4 10 120 720 $600,620 Yes $1,351,395 5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $10 $7 157,000 $878,000 95 476 157,000 20 3 13 90 540 $450,465 Yes $1,013,546 

5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $11 $8 149,000 $953,000 91 453 149,000 20 3 13 90 540 $450,465 Yes $1,013,546 4 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $5 $2 231,000 $369,000 14-28 70-140 35,000 40 2 20 120 720 $406,302 No $914,179 4 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $6 $3 221,000 $531,000 14-27 67-135 33,000 40 2 20 120 720 $406,302 Yes $914,179 4 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $7 $4 212,000 $679,000 13-25 64-129 32,000 40 2 20 120 720 $406,302 Yes $914,179 4 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $8 $5 203,000 $811,000 12-24 62-123 30,000 40 2 20 120 720 $406,302 Yes $914,179 4 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $9 $6 194,000 $929,000 12-24 59-118 29,000 40 2 20 120 720 $406,302 Yes $914,179 5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $5 $2 196,000 $313,000 119 595 196,000 40 2 20 120 720 $406,302 No $914,179 5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $6 $3 188,000 $451,000 114 572 188,000 40 2 20 120 720 $406,302 Yes $914,179 5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $7 $4 180,000 $577,000 110 548 180,000 40 2 20 120 720 $406,302 Yes $914,179 5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $8 $5 172,000 $690,000 105 524 172,000 40 2 20 120 720 $406,302 Yes $914,179 5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $9 $6 165,000 $790,000 100 500 165,000 40 2 20 120 720 $406,302 Yes $914,179 5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $10 $7 157,000 $878,000 95 476 157,000 40 2 20 120 720 $406,302 Yes $914,179 5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $11 $8 149,000 $953,000 91 453 149,000 40 2 20 120 720 $406,302 Yes $914,179 4 Post Office 30 $5 $2 231,000 $369,000 14-28 70-140 35,000 25 2 15 100 600 $353,306 Yes $794,938 4 Post Office 30 $6 $3 221,000 $531,000 14-27 67-135 33,000 25 2 15 100 600 $353,306 Yes $794,938 4 Post Office 30 $7 $4 212,000 $679,000 13-25 64-129 32,000 25 2 15 100 600 $353,306 Yes $794,938 4 Post Office 30 $8 $5 203,000 $811,000 12-24 62-123 30,000 25 2 15 100 600 $353,306 Yes $794,938 4 Post Office 30 $9 $6 194,000 $929,000 12-24 59-118 29,000 25 2 15 100 600 $353,306 Yes $794,938 5 Post Office 30 $5 $2 196,000 $313,000 119 595 196,000 25 3 10 150 900 $529,959 No $1,192,407 5 Post Office 30 $6 $3 188,000 $451,000 114 572 188,000 25 3 10 150 900 $529,959 No $1,192,407 5 Post Office 30 $7 $4 180,000 $577,000 110 548 180,000 25 3 10 150 900 $529,959 Yes $1,192,407 5 Post Office 30 $8 $5 172,000 $690,000 105 524 172,000 25 2 15 100 600 $353,306 Yes $794,938 5 Post Office 30 $9 $6 165,000 $790,000 100 500 165,000 25 2 15 100 600 $353,306 Yes $794,938 5 Post Office 30 $10 $7 157,000 $878,000 95 476 157,000 25 2 15 100 600 $353,306 Yes $794,938 5 Post Office 30 $11 $8 149,000 $953,000 91 453 149,000 25 2 15 100 600 $353,306 Yes $794,938 

Notes: 4. 15% cost increase assumed (compared with 25-passenger vehicle option)

1. This is the option assumed in text of report 5. Round trip reduced to 30 minutes (compared to 40 minutes with Kuhio Hwy. option)2. 25% cost reduction assumed (compared with 25-passenger vehicle option) 6. Assumes money collected above current entry fee ($3) is dedicated to transit operations; accounts for non-paying visitors (passholders a3. 15% cost reduction assumed (compared with 25-passenger vehicle option) 7. Viability is determined by total revenue exceeding total cost; costs are inflated at 2% per year

Hub site closer 

to Refuge - Post 

Office Site (5)

40-Passenger 

Vehicles (4)

14-Passenger 

Vans (2)

20-Passenger 

Vehicles (3)

25-Passenger 

Vehicles (1)

General Options Revenue Ridership System Capacity Annual Operating Cost & Feas
Parsons Brinckerhoff 76 

September 2006 

Table 16. Transit Feasibility Matrix - 2015 

Transit Vehicle 

Option

Conceptual 

Transportation 

Alternative

Potential Hub 

Location

Hub-toRefuge 

Round 

Trip Time 

(minutes)

Refuge 

Entry Fee 

Options

Amount of 

Entry Fee 

dedicated 

to Transit 

Operation

Projected 

Annual 

Refuge 

Visitation in 

2015

Projected 

Annual 

Revenue for 

Transit (6)

Peak-Hour 

Peak 

Season 

Riders

Daily Peak 

Season 

Riders

Annual 

Riders

Vehicle 

Capacity 

(seated)

Number of 

Vehicles 

in 

Operation

Headway 

(minutes 

between 

vehicles)

Peak-Hour 

Capacity

Daily 

Capacity

Low Cost 

Estimate 

(2015$)

Feasible? 

(Is revenue 

greater 

than Low 

Cost 

Estimate?)

High Co

Estimat

(2015$

4 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $5 $2 247,000 $395,000 15-30 75-150 37,000 25 2 20 75 450 $390,078 Yes $877,674 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $6 $3 237,000 $569,000 14-29 72-144 36,000 25 2 20 75 450 $390,078 Yes $877,674 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $7 $4 227,000 $727,000 14-28 69-138 34,000 25 2 20 75 450 $390,078 Yes $877,674 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $8 $5 217,000 $870,000 13-26 66-132 33,000 25 2 20 75 450 $390,078 Yes $877,674 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $9 $6 208,000 $996,000 13-25 63-126 31,000 25 2 20 75 450 $390,078 Yes $877,675 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $5 $2 210,000 $336,000 128 638 210,000 25 4 10 150 900 $780,156 No $1,755,35 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $6 $3 202,000 $484,000 123 613 202,000 25 3 13 113 675 $585,117 No $1,316,55 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $7 $4 193,000 $618,000 117 587 193,000 25 3 13 113 675 $585,117 Yes $1,316,55 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $8 $5 185,000 $739,000 112 562 185,000 25 3 13 113 675 $585,117 Yes $1,316,55 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $9 $6 176,000 $847,000 107 536 176,000 25 3 13 113 675 $585,117 Yes $1,316,55 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $10 $7 168,000 $941,000 102 511 168,000 25 3 13 113 675 $585,117 Yes $1,316,55 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $11 $8 160,000 $1,022,000 97 485 160,000 25 3 13 113 675 $585,117 Yes $1,316,54 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $5 $2 247,000 $395,000 15-30 75-150 37,000 14 2 20 42 252 $292,559 Yes $658,254 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $6 $3 237,000 $569,000 14-29 72-144 36,000 14 2 20 42 252 $292,559 Yes $658,254 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $7 $4 227,000 $727,000 14-28 69-138 34,000 14 2 20 42 252 $292,559 Yes $658,25

4 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $8 $5 217,000 $870,000 13-26 66-132 33,000 14 2 20 42 252 $292,559 Yes $658,254 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $9 $6 208,000 $996,000 13-25 63-126 31,000 14 2 20 42 252 $292,559 Yes $658,255 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $5 $2 210,000 $336,000 128 638 210,000 14 6 7 126 756 $877,676 No $1,974,75 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $6 $3 202,000 $484,000 123 613 202,000 14 6 7 126 756 $877,676 No $1,974,75 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $7 $4 193,000 $618,000 117 587 193,000 14 6 7 126 756 $877,676 No $1,974,75 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $8 $5 185,000 $739,000 112 562 185,000 14 5 8 105 630 $731,397 Yes $1,645,65 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $9 $6 176,000 $847,000 107 536 176,000 14 5 8 105 630 $731,397 Yes $1,645,65 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $10 $7 168,000 $941,000 102 511 168,000 14 5 8 105 630 $731,397 Yes $1,645,65 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $11 $8 160,000 $1,022,000 97 485 160,000 14 4 10 84 504 $585,117 Yes $1,316,54 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $5 $2 247,000 $395,000 15-30 75-150 37,000 20 2 20 60 360 $331,566 Yes $746,024 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $6 $3 237,000 $569,000 14-29 72-144 36,000 20 2 20 60 360 $331,566 Yes $746,024 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $7 $4 227,000 $727,000 14-28 69-138 34,000 20 2 20 60 360 $331,566 Yes $746,024 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $8 $5 217,000 $870,000 13-26 66-132 33,000 20 2 20 60 360 $331,566 Yes $746,02

4 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $9 $6 208,000 $996,000 13-25 63-126 31,000 20 2 20 60 360 $331,566 Yes $746,02

5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $5 $2 210,000 $336,000 128 638 210,000 20 4 10 120 720 $663,133 No $1,492,05 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $6 $3 202,000 $484,000 123 613 202,000 20 4 10 120 720 $663,133 No $1,492,05 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $7 $4 193,000 $618,000 117 587 193,000 20 4 10 120 720 $663,133 No $1,492,05 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $8 $5 185,000 $739,000 112 562 185,000 20 4 10 120 720 $663,133 Yes $1,492,05 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $9 $6 176,000 $847,000 107 536 176,000 20 4 10 120 720 $663,133 Yes $1,492,05 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $10 $7 168,000 $941,000 102 511 168,000 20 3 13 90 540 $497,350 Yes $1,119,05 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $11 $8 160,000 $1,022,000 97 485 160,000 20 3 13 90 540 $497,350 Yes $1,119,04 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $5 $2 247,000 $395,000 15-30 75-150 37,000 40 2 20 120 720 $448,590 No $1,009,34 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $6 $3 237,000 $569,000 14-29 72-144 36,000 40 2 20 120 720 $448,590 Yes $1,009,3

4 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $7 $4 227,000 $727,000 14-28 69-138 34,000 40 2 20 120 720 $448,590 Yes $1,009,3

4 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $8 $5 217,000 $870,000 13-26 66-132 33,000 40 2 20 120 720 $448,590 Yes $1,009,3

4 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $9 $6 208,000 $996,000 13-25 63-126 31,000 40 2 20 120 720 $448,590 Yes $1,009,3

5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $5 $2 210,000 $336,000 128 638 210,000 40 2 20 120 720 $448,590 No $1,009,35 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $6 $3 202,000 $484,000 123 613 202,000 40 2 20 120 720 $448,590 Yes $1,009,35 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $7 $4 193,000 $618,000 117 587 193,000 40 2 20 120 720 $448,590 Yes $1,009,35 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $8 $5 185,000 $739,000 112 562 185,000 40 2 20 120 720 $448,590 Yes $1,009,35 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $9 $6 176,000 $847,000 107 536 176,000 40 2 20 120 720 $448,590 Yes $1,009,35 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $10 $7 168,000 $941,000 102 511 168,000 40 2 20 120 720 $448,590 Yes $1,009,35 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $11 $8 160,000 $1,022,000 97 485 160,000 40 2 20 120 720 $448,590 Yes $1,009,3

4 Post Office 30 $5 $2 247,000 $395,000 15-30 75-150 37,000 25 2 15 100 600 $390,078 Yes $877,67

4 Post Office 30 $6 $3 237,000 $569,000 14-29 72-144 36,000 25 2 15 100 600 $390,078 Yes $877,67

4 Post Office 30 $7 $4 227,000 $727,000 14-28 69-138 34,000 25 2 15 100 600 $390,078 Yes $877,67

4 Post Office 30 $8 $5 217,000 $870,000 13-26 66-132 33,000 25 2 15 100 600 $390,078 Yes $877,67

4 Post Office 30 $9 $6 208,000 $996,000 13-25 63-126 31,000 25 2 15 100 600 $390,078 Yes $877,675 Post Office 30 $5 $2 210,000 $336,000 128 638 210,000 25 3 10 150 900 $585,117 No $1,316,55 Post Office 30 $6 $3 202,000 $484,000 123 613 202,000 25 3 10 150 900 $585,117 No $1,316,55 Post Office 30 $7 $4 193,000 $618,000 117 587 193,000 25 3 10 150 900 $585,117 Yes $1,316,55 Post Office 30 $8 $5 185,000 $739,000 112 562 185,000 25 2 15 100 600 $390,078 Yes $877,675 Post Office 30 $9 $6 176,000 $847,000 107 536 176,000 25 2 15 100 600 $390,078 Yes $877,675 Post Office 30 $10 $7 168,000 $941,000 102 511 168,000 25 2 15 100 600 $390,078 Yes $877,67

5 Post Office 30 $11 $8 160,000 $1,022,000 97 485 160,000 25 2 15 100 600 $390,078 Yes $877,67

Notes: 4. 15% cost increase assumed (compared with 25-passenger vehicle option)1. This is the option assumed in text of report 5. Round trip reduced to 30 minutes (compared to 40 minutes with Kuhio Hwy. option)

2. 25% cost reduction assumed (compared with 25-passenger vehicle option) 6. Assumes money collected above current entry fee ($3) is dedicated to transit operations; accounts for non-paying visitors (passholders a3. 15% cost reduction assumed (compared with 25-passenger vehicle option) 7. Viability is determined by total revenue exceeding total cost; costs are inflated at 2% per year

25-Passenger 

Vehicles (1)

General Options Revenue Ridership System Capacity Annual Operating Cost & Fe

Hub site closer 

to Refuge - Post 

Office Site (5)

40-Passenger 

Vehicles (4)

14-Passenger 

Vans (2)

20-Passenger 

Vehicles (3)
Parsons Brinckerhoff 77 

September 2006 

Table 17. Transit Feasibility Matrix - 2025 

Transit Vehicle 

Option

Conceptual 

Transportation 

Alternative

Potential Hub 

Location

Hub-toRefuge 

Round 

Trip Time 

(minutes)

Refuge 

Entry Fee 

Options

Amount of 

Entry Fee 

dedicated 

to Transit 

Operation

Projected 

Annual 

Refuge 

Visitation in 

2025

Projected 

Annual 

Revenue for 

Transit (6)

Peak-Hour 

Peak 

Season 

Riders

Daily Peak 

Season 

Riders

Annual 

Riders

Vehicle 

Capacity 

(seated)

Number of 

Vehicles 

in 

Operation

Headway 

(minutes 

between 

vehicles)

Peak-Hour 

Capacity

Daily 

Capacity

Low Cost 

Estimate 

(2025$)

Feasible? 

(Is revenue 

greater 

than Low 

Cost 

Estimate?)

High C

Estima

(2025

4 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $5 $2 284,000 $454,000 17-35 86-173 43,000 25 2 20 75 450 $475,503 No $1,069,4 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $6 $3 273,000 $654,000 17-33 83-166 41,000 25 2 20 75 450 $475,503 Yes $1,069,

4 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $7 $4 261,000 $836,000 16-32 79-159 39,000 25 2 20 75 450 $475,503 Yes $1,069,4 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $8 $5 250,000 $999,000 15-30 76-152 38,000 25 2 20 75 450 $475,503 Yes $1,069,4 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $9 $6 239,000 $1,145,000 14-29 72-145 36,000 25 2 20 75 450 $475,503 Yes $1,069,

5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $5 $2 241,000 $386,000 147 734 241,000 25 4 10 150 900 $951,006 No $2,139,5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $6 $3 232,000 $566,000 141 704 232,000 25 3 13 113 675 $713,255 No $1,604,5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $7 $4 222,000 $711,000 135 675 222,000 25 3 13 113 675 $713,255 No $1,604,5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $8 $5 212,000 $850,000 129 646 212,000 25 3 13 113 675 $713,255 Yes $1,604,

5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $9 $6 203,000 $973,000 123 616 203,000 25 3 13 113 675 $713,255 Yes $1,604,5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $10 $7 193,000 $1,081,000 117 587 193,000 25 3 13 113 675 $713,255 Yes $1,604,5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $11 $8 183,000 $1,174,000 111 557 183,000 25 3 13 113 675 $713,255 Yes $1,604,4 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $5 $2 284,000 $454,000 17-35 86-173 43,000 14 2 20 42 252 $356,627 Yes $802,44 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $6 $3 273,000 $654,000 17-33 83-166 41,000 14 2 20 42 252 $356,627 Yes $802,44 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $7 $4 261,000 $836,000 16-32 79-159 39,000 14 2 20 42 252 $356,627 Yes $802,44 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $8 $5 250,000 $999,000 15-30 76-152 38,000 14 2 20 42 252 $356,627 Yes $802,44 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $9 $6 239,000 $1,145,000 14-29 72-145 36,000 14 2 20 42 252 $356,627 Yes $802,45 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $5 $2 241,000 $386,000 147 734 241,000 14 6 7 126 756 $1,069,882 No $2,407,5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $6 $3 232,000 $566,000 141 704 232,000 14 6 7 126 756 $1,069,882 No $2,407,5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $7 $4 222,000 $711,000 135 675 222,000 14 6 7 126 756 $1,069,882 No $2,407,5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $8 $5 212,000 $850,000 129 646 212,000 14 5 8 105 630 $891,568 No $2,006,5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $9 $6 203,000 $973,000 123 616 203,000 14 5 8 105 630 $891,568 Yes $2,006,5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $10 $7 193,000 $1,081,000 117 587 193,000 14 5 8 105 630 $891,568 Yes $2,006,5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $11 $8 183,000 $1,174,000 111 557 183,000 14 4 10 84 504 $713,255 Yes $1,604,4 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $5 $2 284,000 $454,000 17-35 86-173 43,000 20 2 20 60 360 $404,178 Yes $909,44 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $6 $3 273,000 $654,000 17-33 83-166 41,000 20 2 20 60 360 $404,178 Yes $909,44 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $7 $4 261,000 $836,000 16-32 79-159 39,000 20 2 20 60 360 $404,178 Yes $909,44 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $8 $5 250,000 $999,000 15-30 76-152 38,000 20 2 20 60 360 $404,178 Yes $909,44 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $9 $6 239,000 $1,145,000 14-29 72-145 36,000 20 2 20 60 360 $404,178 Yes $909,4

5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $5 $2 241,000 $386,000 147 734 241,000 20 4 10 120 720 $808,355 No $1,818,5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $6 $3 232,000 $566,000 141 704 232,000 20 4 10 120 720 $808,355 No $1,818,5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $7 $4 222,000 $711,000 135 675 222,000 20 4 10 120 720 $808,355 No $1,818,5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $8 $5 212,000 $850,000 129 646 212,000 20 4 10 120 720 $808,355 Yes $1,818,5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $9 $6 203,000 $973,000 123 616 203,000 20 4 10 120 720 $808,355 Yes $1,818,5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $10 $7 193,000 $1,081,000 117 587 193,000 20 3 13 90 540 $606,267 Yes $1,364,5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $11 $8 183,000 $1,174,000 111 557 183,000 20 3 13 90 540 $606,267 Yes $1,364,4 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $5 $2 284,000 $454,000 17-35 86-173 43,000 40 2 20 120 720 $546,829 No $1,230,

4 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $6 $3 273,000 $654,000 17-33 83-166 41,000 40 2 20 120 720 $546,829 Yes $1,230,4 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $7 $4 261,000 $836,000 16-32 79-159 39,000 40 2 20 120 720 $546,829 Yes $1,230,4 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $8 $5 250,000 $999,000 15-30 76-152 38,000 40 2 20 120 720 $546,829 Yes $1,230,4 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $9 $6 239,000 $1,145,000 14-29 72-145 36,000 40 2 20 120 720 $546,829 Yes $1,230,

5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $5 $2 241,000 $386,000 147 734 241,000 40 2 20 120 720 $546,829 No $1,230,5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $6 $3 232,000 $566,000 141 704 232,000 40 2 20 120 720 $546,829 Yes $1,230,5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $7 $4 222,000 $711,000 135 675 222,000 40 2 20 120 720 $546,829 Yes $1,230,5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $8 $5 212,000 $850,000 129 646 212,000 40 2 20 120 720 $546,829 Yes $1,230,5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $9 $6 203,000 $973,000 123 616 203,000 40 2 20 120 720 $546,829 Yes $1,230,5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $10 $7 193,000 $1,081,000 117 587 193,000 40 2 20 120 720 $546,829 Yes $1,230,5 Kuhio Hwy. 40 $11 $8 183,000 $1,174,000 111 557 183,000 40 2 20 120 720 $546,829 Yes $1,230,4 Post Office 30 $5 $2 284,000 $454,000 17-35 86-173 43,000 25 2 15 100 600 $475,503 No $1,069,4 Post Office 30 $6 $3 273,000 $654,000 17-33 83-166 41,000 25 2 15 100 600 $475,503 Yes $1,069,4 Post Office 30 $7 $4 261,000 $836,000 16-32 79-159 39,000 25 2 15 100 600 $475,503 Yes $1,069,4 Post Office 30 $8 $5 250,000 $999,000 15-30 76-152 38,000 25 2 15 100 600 $475,503 Yes $1,069,4 Post Office 30 $9 $6 239,000 $1,145,000 14-29 72-145 36,000 25 2 15 100 600 $475,503 Yes $1,069,5 Post Office 30 $5 $2 241,000 $386,000 147 734 241,000 25 3 10 150 900 $713,255 No $1,604,

5 Post Office 30 $6 $3 232,000 $566,000 141 704 232,000 25 3 10 150 900 $713,255 No $1,604,5 Post Office 30 $7 $4 222,000 $711,000 135 675 222,000 25 3 10 150 900 $713,255 No $1,604,5 Post Office 30 $8 $5 212,000 $850,000 129 646 212,000 25 2 15 100 600 $475,503 Yes $1,069,5 Post Office 30 $9 $6 203,000 $973,000 123 616 203,000 25 2 15 100 600 $475,503 Yes $1,069,5 Post Office 30 $10 $7 193,000 $1,081,000 117 587 193,000 25 2 15 100 600 $475,503 Yes $1,069,5 Post Office 30 $11 $8 183,000 $1,174,000 111 557 183,000 25 2 15 100 600 $475,503 Yes $1,069,

Notes: 4. 15% cost increase assumed (compared with 25-passenger vehicle option)1. This is the option assumed in text of report 5. Round trip reduced to 30 minutes (compared to 40 minutes with Kuhio Hwy. option)2. 25% cost reduction assumed (compared with 25-passenger vehicle option) 6. Assumes money collected above current entry fee ($3) is dedicated to transit operations; accounts for non-paying visitors (passholders 3. 15% cost reduction assumed (compared with 25-passenger vehicle option) 7. Viability is determined by total revenue exceeding total cost; costs are inflated at 2% per year

General Options Revenue Ridership System Capacity Annual Operating Cost & F

Hub site closer 

to Refuge - Post 

Office Site (5)

40-Passenger 

Vehicles (4)

14-Passenger 

Vans (2)

20-Passenger 

Vehicles (3)

25-Passenger 

Vehicles (1)
Parsons Brinckerhoff 78 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Summary of Key Findings 

The following is a summary of the key transportation system findings for 

Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge. 

1. Annual visitation to KPNWR is estimated at 215,000 in 2005, and is 

expected to increase to between 262,000 and 332,000 by 2025. 

2. The growing popularity of KPNWR is generating operational, access, and 

safety issues, both at the Refuge and in the nearby Kilauea Town. 

3. Roughly 20 to 25 percent of all traffic on Kilauea Road is headed to the 

Refuge, including the Overlook and/or the Point70. 

4. By 2010, existing Refuge parking capacity will be approached routinely or 

exceeded (by an average of 10 spaces during the daily peak hour), under 

a mid-range growth scenario during peak season (winter, spring, and 

summer). 

5. By 2015, daily parking demand will approach or exceed existing capacity 

at the Refuge (by an average of 14 spaces during the peak hour/peak 

season). This deficit condition will occur all day during the Refuge’s public 

hours of operation during the peak season, and for approximately one to 

two hours of the day during the off-peak season (fall). 

6. Five conceptual transportation alternatives were developed, analyzed, and 

given cursory evaluation: No-Build; Minor Improvements, Transportation 

System Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management 

(TDM); Moderate Improvements to Increase Capacity; Voluntary Shuttle 

Service with Private Vehicle Access; and, Mandatory Shuttle Service with 

no public parking at the Point. 

7. All five transportation alternatives were found to be economically feasible, 

based on preliminary analysis and certain specified parameters. 

8. Based on preliminary estimates, it would cost about $160,000 (low-cost 

estimate71) to $360,000 (high-cost estimate72) per year to operate one 25-

passenger shuttle bus for KPNWR. 

 

70 Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, KPNWR Traffic Visitor and Parking Counts Study, p.8. 71 The low-cost estimate assumes government operation, combined with grants by others to 

provide capital improvements such as vehicles, onsite improvements, and a Hub visitor and 

maintenance facility. 

72 The high-cost estimate assumes contracting with a private company to provide turnkey 

operation. Capital improvements needed under this scenario, such as the offsite Hub visitor 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 79 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

9. Assuming development of a new offsite transit center “Hub” facility, 

providing visitors with convenient, ample parking; restrooms; ticket sales, 

and attractive, informative visitor services, it can be expected that a “free” 

(cost included in Refuge entry fee) voluntary shuttle system with guided 

narration (Alternative 4) would be used by about 10% - 20% of KPNWR 

visitors. 

10. With a voluntary shuttle system in place, it is estimated that 80% - 90% of 

visitors would still choose to drive to KPNWR rather than use the shuttle. 

11. Raising the current entry fee from $3 to $5, while adding a voluntary 

shuttle service with on-board guided narration, would discourage some 

visitors from entering due to increased cost, but would be attractive to 

others, resulting in no net change in visitor projections. 

12. If the Refuge entry fee is raised above $5, visitation will begin to drop, 

either with or without a shuttle system in operation. 

13. To provide enough additional revenue to operate a voluntary shuttle 

system (Alternative 4) using 14-passenger (or similar) vehicles in 2010, 

the Refuge entry fee would need to be raised from the current fee of $3 to 

$5, assuming the low-cost estimate for the provision of transit is valid, or 

raised to $7 under a high-cost estimate. 

14. A mandatory shuttle system with on-board narration (Alternative 5) to be 

used by all visitors, with no private vehicle access permitted into the 

Refuge, would reduce visitation by about 15% below projected demand. 

15. A mandatory shuttle bus system (Alternative 5), using 40-passenger 

vehicles, would be feasible in 2010 with an entry fee of $6 under the lowcost estimate, and $11 assuming the high-cost estimate. 

 facility, are assumed to be provided with grants by others and are not included in the high-cost 

estimate. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 80 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Recommendations Based on Findings to Date 

Short-Term Recommendations (1- 5 years) 

Based on findings to date, FWS management should implement the following 

transportation strategies in the short-term (1 to 5 years) to help relieve 

transportation problems at KPNWR. 

1. Seek/secure funding to initiate the next transportation planning, 

conceptual design, and environmental (NEPA) processing phase of the 

ATS Study efforts for KPNWR. Establish, evaluate, and confirm the 

preferred transportation alternative(s), combinations, and/or phasing of 

alternatives, which most comprehensively address/integrate the short-, 

medium-, and long-range transportation system needs for the Refuge. 

2. Immediately begin to implement low-cost transportation system 

management (TSM) and transportation demand management (TDM) 

strategies. These include updating visitor information available on the 

FWS/KPNWR web page, in published literature, and via phone message; 

to educate potential visitors about “the best times to visit” based on 

anticipated availability of parking and/or other considerations such as the 

scheduling of interpretive programs. If possible, monitor and record the 

level of success of each strategy as it is implemented. 

3. Ensure that the current onsite parking and internal circulation system 

configuration is most efficient. Properly identify non-paved, dedicated 

parking spaces (e.g., gravel area at the Point) to promote efficient and 

safer public parking. 

4. Develop and implement a formal monitoring program to track incidents 

when public demand for onsite parking exceeds supply. Document 

temporary road closures, required to prohibit additional public access into 

the Refuge for limited periods of time on any given day, due to parking 

capacity issues.73 

5. Seek funding for “Intelligent Transportation System” (ITS) applications, 

specifically the design/installation of an aesthetically pleasing and contextsensitive electronic sign, to be placed on Kuhio Highway. Information to 

be provided to the public via such technology can be changed remotely, in 

real time, to direct potential Refuge visitors and/or to inform them of 

current conditions at the Refuge which may restrict access. Such 

“variable message” applications will prevent visitors from wasting time and 

resources driving to the Refuge if no parking is currently available. 

Conversely, it may encourage additional visitation when access to the 

Refuge is unrestricted. It will also diminish safety, access, and circulation 

 

73 Refuge staff have recently begun this type of monitoring program. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 81 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

problems at the Refuge; and will reduce round-trip traffic (and associated 

noise and air quality impacts) in Kilauea Town. 

6. Pursue from the County of Kauai, fee-simple purchase (or other long-term 

conveyance) of all or a portion of the County’s parcel of land adjacent to 

the Overlook (west of Kilauea Road). This parcel is currently used 

informally for overflow visitor parking; and, control of this parcel by FWS 

will foster comprehensive management of the Overlook parking area, and 

may lead to a more successful ATS program, while enhancing the visitor 

experience. 

7. Develop a phased transportation plan for KPNWR that starts with 

implementing the low-cost techniques listed above, and creates “trigger 

points” (based on congestion levels at the Refuge) for moving toward 

more capital intensive access and transportation solutions. 

8. Based on the outcome of the anticipated NEPA phase of the Study, begin 

to pursue funding for potential medium- and long-term capital 

improvements that could include both onsite and/or offsite infrastructure 

improvements. 

9. Promote the “3C” planning process; i.e., to facilitate “continuous, 

collaborative, and cooperative” endeavors to inform and work with the 

Kilauea community, Kauai County, and other stakeholders including the 

public at large, to minimize adverse transportation impacts generated by 

the increasing popularity of KPNWR. 

10. Based on the outcome of the anticipated NEPA phase of the Study, 

pursue funding of a “demonstration project” to test the viability of transit 

applications for KPNWR; utilizing leased vehicles, over a limited period of 

time. 

11. Fully document and analyze the utilization of transit, as currently provided 

by FWS during “special event days” held at KPNWR each year. 

Medium-Term Recommendations (6-10 years) 

The following transportation strategies are medium-term (6 to 10 years) 

recommendations for KPNWR, based on findings to date. 

1. Consider implementing more aggressive TSM and/or TDM strategies not 

already in place, such as installation of onsite parking meters or a pay 

station, and a visitor reservation system. 

2. Consider increasing KPNWR entry fees, and subsequently dedicating all 

or a portion of the additional revenue generated toward the 

implementation of transportation facilities determined to be preferred 

during the anticipated NEPA phase of the Study. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 82 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

3. Consider formalizing and expanding parking capacity on the parcel of land 

adjacent to the Overlook, to accommodate overflow parking when demand 

exceeds capacity at the Point and/or at the Overlook. 

4. If the preferred alternative includes a transit system, operating from an 

offsite location, pursue funding for construction of Hub facility and 

purchasing transit vehicles. 

5. Continue to work with the Kilauea community to minimize adverse 

transportation impacts related to increasing visitation demand at KPNWR. 

6. Continue to monitor and evaluate transportation programs for success. 

Long-Term Recommendations (11-20 years) 

The following transportation strategies are long-term (11 to 20 years) 

recommendations for KPNWR, based on findings to date: 

1. If the preferred alternative includes a transit option from an offsite location, 

and if this was not already done during the medium-term, construct Hub 

facility and move all visitor ticket sales (entry fees), transit and some 

general maintenance activities/storage, and the KPNWR book store to 

new location. 

2. If the preferred alternative includes a transit option from an offsite location, 

and if this was not already done during the medium-term, implement 

voluntary or mandatory shuttle system operations, based on current 

conditions. 

3. Continue to work with the Kilauea community to minimize adverse 

transportation impacts. 

4. Continue to monitor and evaluate transportation programs and address 

emerging issues to ensure ongoing success. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 83 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

KPNWR Transportation-Related Issues to be Resolved 

and Next Steps 

The following issues have been identified as needing further study and/or 

resolution, and should be addressed or completed during the next phase of 

study. 

1. Secure Funding for the next phase of ATS Project Planning/NEPA 

Processing and Preliminary Design. 

2. Determine Lead Agency/Cooperating Agency Status and Secure 

Contractual and Funding Agreements. 

3. Initiate NEPA Analyses and Processing, including Public Involvement. 

4. Reconfirm the Feasibility of all previously identified Transportation 

Alternatives. Identify any new alternatives that should be considered and 

confirm their feasibility. 

5. Coordinate Comprehensive Transportation Planning/Integration with the 

scheduled FWS Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) process. 

6. Coordinate with Community Plans and Local Partners: ATS plans and 

transportation strategies, including but not limited to the five 

Transportation Alternatives identified to date for KPNWR, should be 

consistent with the goals of the Kilauea Town Plan and other long-term 

planning efforts by Kauai County, Kauai Bus, Hawaii Department of 

Transportation (HDOT), FHWA, and other stakeholders. Interagency 

coordination and public involvement will be important to ensure success. 

7. Determine Potential Need for Participation in the Development of a 

Proposed Bypass Road: FWS and CFLHD are unable to make any 

commitments at this time about federal participation/funding in the 

potential development of a bypass road for Kilauea Town. Before NEPA 

environmental review documents can be completed, relative to KPNWR 

transportation issues (as is anticipated during the next transportation 

planning/NEPA processing phase); FWS should determine if a successful 

ATS strategy for KPNWR, specifically transit, is dependent upon the use 

of a bypass road. If so, it should subsequently be determined if the 

development of such transportation infrastructure improvements 

can/should be funded; and, how potential development joint ventures 

(public-public and/or public-private), ongoing facility ownership, liability, 

and maintenance issues may be addressed. 

8. Determine Preferred Location and Impacts of Potential Transit Hub Site: If 

transit is determined to be a preferred alternative for KPNWR, explore the 

benefits, costs, and impacts of each potential hub site, and work with the 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 84 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

community to determine the ideal location, considering the needs of the 

Refuge and the intent of the Kilauea Town Plan. 

9. Evaluate FWS Operational Preferences for a Potential Transit Shuttle 

System: FWS will need to examine various operational issues for a 

shuttle system, including parking and management policies, direct access 

to the Point by private commercial transit operators (under Alternative 5), 

and ticket vending options and locations, among others. 

10. Conduct a Traffic Study: A traffic study will be needed to evaluate the 

differing impacts on the local system, of all conceptual transportation 

alternatives under consideration. This study should include potential 

transit routes and stops, alternate Hub locations, and needed 

improvements to local roadways. 

11. Acquire Topographic Survey Data: A topographic survey will be needed 

to verify the engineering feasibility of potential improvements at KPNWR, 

such as vehicle access, entrance road widening, and expanding public 

facilities at the Overlook. 

12. Acquire Flora and Fauna Habitat Mapping: Mapping, available from FWS, 

would help determine where onsite construction/expansion at KPNWR is 

environmentally feasible. A formal Endangered Species Act “Section 7” 

consultation should be conducted by FWS specialists; to reconfirm the 

accuracy of mapped habitats, to assess potential impacts and/or to 

identify mitigation measures relative to endangered species from the 

potential development/intensification of transportation facilities at KPNWR. 

13. Update Refuge Visitor and Parking Counts: The last onsite counts were 

taken at the Refuge in 2003. Changes to the fee collection system, visitor 

use patterns, growth in the inter-island cruise ship industry, and general 

growth in visitations to Kauai, have all likely impacted KPNWR visitor 

patterns since 2003. 

14. Specify all Key FWS Management Objectives and Actions to be Proposed: 

For example, Refuge staff would like to move administrative and 

maintenance functions off of the Point, perhaps to the potential Hub site. 

This issue was not clearly addressed in the initial Purpose and Need 

Statement, as developed for the current transportation Study project. 

15. Refine the Purpose and Need Project Statement: The Purpose and Need 

statement should be refined at the start of the next planning/ 

environmental processing phase. 

16. Refine Transportation Alternatives Cost Estimates: Conduct detailed cost 

estimates for all viable alternatives, including combinations and/or phasing 

of compatible alternatives; to be developed to a level that is appropriate 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 85 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

for the screening process, as conducted during the alternatives analysis 

task of the anticipated environmental phase of the ATS Study. 

17. Evaluate Transit Vehicle Types: If it is determined that transit is to be 

included in the preferred alternative “solution set,” conduct research on 

vehicles currently available; addressing attributes such as unit cost, 

capacity and size, reliability, aesthetics, visitor experience, legality, and 

applicability for the location and climate. Types of vehicles examined 

could include rubber-tired historic-replica trolleys, trams, electrically 

powered and/or alternative fuel vehicles. Specification of additional 

details/needs of the transit system will be required, which could affect cost 

and feasibility of transit options. 

18. Determine/Prepare the Appropriate Type of NEPA Environmental Review 

Document: Although preparation of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) may be 

sufficient for some of the potential minor transportation improvements at 

KPNWR, it seems more likely that preparation of an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be 

required, considering the full extent of the various alternatives. All 

germane social, economic, and environmental (“SEE”) considerations 

must be addressed. Because it is likely that both federal and state/county 

resources would be utilized, environmental documentation would need to 

be prepared in accordance with both the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) 

Chapter 343, the State’s environmental review law. Additional federal 

requirements, such as Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and other federal and/or 

state regulations, would apply. 

19. Conduct Public Outreach Activities: Public involvement meetings and/or 

hearings will be required if the Draft EA or EIS scoping and review 

processes are pursued. Other public forums may be advisable and/or 

required to obtain public input and to further develop each conceptual 

transportation alternative to be considered and processed under NEPA. 

20. Develop Conceptual Site Plans: Develop conceptual site plans and 

related architectural, engineering, and/or landscaping plans at an 

appropriate level of detail; in an effort to document and accommodate the 

proposed transportation functions, sizes, aesthetics, and costs of each 

potential significant transportation facility improvement. 

21. Analyze Biological, Cultural, Historic, and Archaeological Impacts and 

Constraints at the Potential Transit Hub Sites, the Point, and Overlook: 

Resources at the Refuge will need to be addressed in the context of the 

EA or EIS. In addition, the following actions will also be needed: 

consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer and concurrence 

with Coastal Zone Management regulations. Other issues such as 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 86 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

Hazardous Materials clearance and aesthetics and visual impact may 

need to be addressed. 

22. Consider how the individual Transportation Alternatives, their integration 

and/or phasing opportunities would affect the Visitor Experience at 

KPNWR. 

23. Establish Selection Criteria for Transportation Alternatives. 

24. Develop Phasing Plan for Improvements: The preferred alternative for 

KPNWR could be a phased approach that incorporates elements of 

several of the conceptual alternatives to be integrated and implemented in 

cohesive stages over time. In determining appropriate phases, "trigger 

points" should be developed to determine when to move into subsequent 

phases. Examples of trigger points include metrics of visitation, 

congestion, visitor comments/complaints, resource impacts, etc. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 87 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

List of References 

Documents: 

Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc. KPNWR Traffic, Visitor and 

Parking Counts Study. January 2004. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge entrance 

fees receipt data, 2000-2004. 

Sexton, N.R., S.C. Gillette, L. Koontz, S.C. Stewart, J. Loomis, and K. Wundrock, 

2005, Visitor and Community Survey Results for Kilauea Point National 

Wildlife Refuge and Lighthouse: Completion report, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Biological Resources Discipline, Open-File Report 2005-1420, 

November 2005, 221p. 

Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc. Refuge Visitor Projections 

Report. January 2006. 

Wilkinson, Todd. “Buses and Trains Amid Towering Cliffs: At More Parks, 

Visitors Leave the Car Behind.” Christian Science Monitor, May 2001. 

Polynesian Adventure Tours. Information on private vendor operating costs for 

shuttle, September 2005. (http://www.polyad.com/charter.html) 

Plan Pacific, Inc. Draft Kilauea Town Plan: An Update of the Kilauea Sub-Area 

Plan. Prepared for Kauai County Planning Department. September 2005. 

2004 National Transit Database. The Bus transit service and financial 

information. 

National Park Service. Alternative Transportation System Action Plan, Bryce 

Canyon National Park, 2004. 

Personal Communications: 

Barretto, Brian. County of Kauai, Hawaii, Email from Brian Barretto of County of 

Kauai, May 2005. 

Cloud, Dan. Bryce Canyon National Park. Phone discussion with Dan Cloud of 

Bryce Canyon NP, July 2005. 

Lein, Mark. Transit Sales International. Phone discussion with Mark Lein of 

Transit Sales International, October 12, 2005. 

***** 
Parsons Brinckerhoff 88 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 

APPENDICES 

Appendix A: Refuge Visitor Projections Report (RVP Report) 

Appendix B: Testimony by FWS on Kilauea Town Plan 

Appendix C: Conceptual Transportation Alternatives Matrix 

Appendix D: Conceptual Alternatives - Site Plan Concepts and 

Related Technologies 

Appendix E: Assumed Effect of Increased Entry Fee on Visitation 

Appendix F: Private Vendor Operating Costs 

Appendix G: Kilauea Town Plan – Bypass Road Options 
Parsons Brinckerhoff A-1 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 Appendix A

Appendix A: 

KILAUEA POINT NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS STUDY 

REFUGE VISITOR PROJECTIONS REPORT 

 

Conducted on behalf of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

by the U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Highway Administration 

Central Federal Lands Highway Division 

Contract No. DTFH68-02-D-00001 

Task Order DTFH68-03-T-00044 

Prepared By: 

Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas 

March 2006 
Parsons Brinckerhoff A-2 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 Appendix A

Table of Contents 

KILAUEA POINT NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ALTERNATIVE 

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS STUDY REFUGE VISITOR PROJECTIONS 

REPORT .............................................................................................................. 1

Introduction......................................................................................................... 3

Growth Projection Methodology ....................................................................... 4

Visitation Issues at the Overlook ................................................................... 5

Growth Trends.................................................................................................... 6

Past and Recent Growth Trends....................................................................... 6

Annual Visitations to Kauai............................................................................ 6

Cruise Ship Arrivals....................................................................................... 8

Future Growth Rate Scenarios at KPNWR ....................................................... 8

Low Growth Rate Scenario............................................................................ 9

Mid-Range Growth Rate Scenario................................................................. 9

High Growth Rate Scenario......................................................................... 10

Summary of Growth Rate Scenarios at KPNWR ............................................ 10

Visitation Forecasts ......................................................................................... 11

Annual Forecasts............................................................................................ 11

Seasonal Variation and Daily Forecasts ......................................................... 13

Summary ........................................................................................................... 18

List of References ............................................................................................ 19

Attachment A: Estimate of 2005 Refuge Visitations...................................... 20

Methods Considered for Estimating 2005 Refuge Visitations ......................... 20

Attachment B: Estimating Peak-Day to Annual Expansion Factor .............. 22

Figures 

Figure 1. Kauai Visitations During the Month of March 1990 – 2004................... 7 

Figure 2. KPNWR Monthly Dollar Receipts (Entrance Fees)............................. 14 

Figure 3. KPNWR Seasonal Receipts (Entrance Fees)..................................... 15 

Figure 4. Average Monthly Dollar Receipts (Entrance Fees) by Combined 

Seasons (Peak vs. Off-Peak) ...................................................................... 15 

Tables 

Table 1. Kauai Visitors During March .................................................................. 7 

Table 2. KPNWR Visitation Growth Forecasts (Annual) .................................... 12 

Table 3. KPNWR Visitation Growth Forecasts (Daily, Peak Season) ................ 16 

Table 4. KPNWR Visitation Growth Forecasts (Daily, Off-Peak Season) .......... 17 
Parsons Brinckerhoff A-3 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 Appendix A 

Introduction 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), with support from the Federal 

Highway Administration Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD), is 

exploring alternatives to the existing transportation system at the Kilauea Point 

National Wildlife Refuge (KPNWR), located on the Island of Kauai, Hawaii. 

As part of the Alternative Transportation Systems Study (ATS Study) visitation, 

parking and traffic conditions were sampled at KPNWR and documented in the 

Traffic, Visitor, and Parking Counts (TVP) Study (January 2004). The TVP Study 

relied on data collected at the Refuge in early and mid-2003, as well as, counts 

taken in 2002, as part of a research report, “Visitor Use Study Summary: Kilauea 

Point National Wildlife Refuge,” prepared by Shayna Graham (graduate student 

at the University of California –Chico). The TVP Study indicated that growth in 

visitation to KPNWR has occurred over time. It also analyzed impacts of the 

recent economic recession and the war in Iraq, on the number of visitors 

recorded at the Refuge during the 2003 counts. 

The purpose of this document, the Refuge Visitor Projections Report (RVPR), is 

to characterize future visitation at KPNWR, and in concert with the subsequent 

document Transit and Parking Projections Report (TPPR) is intended to help 

determine viable improvements and alternatives to the existing transportation 

system, including possible institution of a transit “shuttle” system. This analysis 

considers a variety of factors likely to affect the level of visitation, including 

projected growth rates for overall visitation to Kauai Island, seasonal variations in 

visitation, and possible changes to visitor services. 

In a related research effort, the U.S. Geological Survey – Policy Analysis and 

Science Assistance (PASA) team was retained by CFLHD; to conduct surveys 

and prepare a report delineating the results and implications of visitor and 

community attitudes. This Visitor Perceptions and Economic Valuation Research 

for the KPNWR (Final Completion Report, January 2006), addressees some of 

the issues referenced above, also in support of the ATS Study. 

The first section of this RVPR document, “Growth Projection Methodology” 

summarizes the methods and assumptions used to develop visitor projections for 

KPNWR. “Growth Trends,” describes the factors used to develop forecasts for 

KPNWR visitation; the results of which are detailed in the “Visitation Forecasts” 

section. These visitor projections will influence the conceptual designs of 

alternative transportation options being developed during the ATS Study. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff A-4 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 Appendix A 

Growth Projection Methodology 

To forecast growth in KPNWR visitations over both the short-term and long-term, 

a variety of factors must be considered. As growth rates tend to fluctuate over 

time, resulting in a wide array of projections, a range of rates was developed to 

allow the evaluation of transportation strategies under a variety of scenarios. 

To capture the wide range of variations possible in visitor growth rates, this study 

identified and examined the potential impacts of four factors on the visitor growth 

rate: 

• Past and recent growth trends in Kauai visitation, including cruise ship 

arrivals 

• Potential changes in the type of visitor services offered at the Refuge 

• Potential changes in access options to the Refuge 

• Potential changes in Refuge entrance fees 

For purposes of this study, the following three growth scenarios were developed 

with the above four factors in mind: 

• Low Growth Scenario, which accounts for economic downturns, reduced 

services at the Refuge, and other factors which could limit the growth in 

visitation to the Refuge 

• Mid-Range Growth Scenario, which uses a combination of past trends 

and market growth projections from the State of Hawaii Department of 

Business, Economic Development and Tourism (DBEDT), to represent 

moderate projected growth; and 

• High Growth Scenario, based on recent trends, which assumes 

continued growth in tourism and potentially an increase in visitor services 

at the Refuge (although at this time the Refuge staff have indicated there 

are no immediate plans to increase visitor services). 

These low, medium, and high growth rate projections were combined with other 

variables of interest to the USFWS, including: 

• Changes Over Time - Future visitor projections were developed for shortterm (5-year or 2010), medium-term (10-year or 2015), and long-term (20-

year, or 2025) periods. 

• Seasonal Variability - Visitation forecasts were developed for peak and 

off-peak seasons. The peak seasons are winter, spring and summer, 

while the off-peak season is fall. To adjust the available peak data to 

reflect off-peak counts, seasonal adjustment factors were developed and 

applied to the peak numbers. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff A-5 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 Appendix A 

Upon quantifying the projected visitation using the different growth scenarios, 

incorporating anticipated changes over time and seasonal variability, these 

variations in visitor forecasts will then be used in the Transit and Parking 

Projections Demand Report to quantify the following: 

• Parking utilization at Kilauea Point NWR (aka, The Point) 

• Parking utilization at Kilauea Point Overlook; and 

• Potential transit ridership. 

The parking utilization and transit ridership estimates will be used to develop and 

help screen the initial transportation alternatives; and to assist with planning and 

analysis of viable transportation alternatives, in the future NEPA (National 

Environmental Policy Act) phase of this transportation planning effort. 

Visitation Issues at the Overlook

It should be noted that the Refuge visitation data and forecasts are focused on 

the area known as “The Point” which is inside the Refuge access control gate, 

with ingress from the cul-de-sac at the end of Kilauea Lighthouse Road. 

Visitation to the Overlook (on the cul-de-sac, outside the Refuge access control 

gate), by contrast, is not restricted and has not traditionally been counted. 

Uncontrolled public access to the cul-de-sac area has the potential to create 

traffic and access problems in the future, which were not addressed in this report. 

Possible increases in entry fees, restrictions on parking at the Point, and the 

implementation of shuttle bus operations, which are being explored in the Transit 

and Parking Projections Report, could either relieve or exacerbate problems at 

the Overlook. This issue will be explored in more detail during the NEPA phase 

of the project. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff A-6 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 Appendix A 

Growth Trends 

Past and Recent Growth Trends 

Annual Visitations to Kauai by Air

Figure 1 and Table 1, below, show the visitation counts to Kauai (domestic – 

from within Hawaii and from the mainland; and international, arriving by air) in the 

month of March between 1990 and 2005, as provided by the State’s Department 

of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (DBEDT). March was 

selected as being representative of the peak season. It should be noted there 

was a significant drop in tourism between 1992 and 1994, due to the devastation 

and lingering effects caused by Hurricane Iniki, which resulted in a rather lengthy 

period where annual visitations were well below 1990’s level. And a significant 

drop in international travelers occurred after 2002, potentially due to the 

September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the start of the Iraq War in March, 

2003. As a result, the period between 1990 and 2005 indicates an overall 

downward trend in visitations, rather than the expected increase over time. 

Despite these anomalies, it can be said that a more “normal” visitor trend 

resumed in 1995, and continued with the exception of the slight drop between 

2001-2003. Thus, 1995 was used as the basis for determining growth increase 

trends. Between 1995 and 2005, overall growth in visitors to Kauai was 

approximately 1.3 percent per year, as summarized in Table 1, below. A trend 

line in the table shows the growth rate since 1995. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff A-7 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 Appendix A 

Figure 1. Kauai Visitors arriving by air during the Month of March 1990 – 

2005 

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

1990 1995 2000 2005

Year

Number of Visitors

March Domestic

March International

March Total

Linear (March Total)

Source: State of Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism. 

Table 1. Kauai Visitors arriving by air during March 

 Type of Visitor 

Year Domestic International Total 

1990 85,800 17,700 103,500 

1995 61,800 15,700 77,600 

2000 77,900 15,700 93,600 

2001 75,700 14,900 90,600 

2002 70,500 15,800 86,300 

2003 72,600 8,50074 81,100 

2004 71,900 11,400 83,300 

2005 81,100 8,200 89,300 

Average Annual Growth 

Rate, 1995 – 2005 +2.5% -5.7% +1.3% 

Source: State of Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism. 

 

74 Iraq War began in March, 2003, impacting International travel. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff A-8 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 Appendix A 

Cruise Ship Arrivals

While most visitors to KPNWR arrive to Kauai by airplane, the 2003 KPNWR 

Traffic, Visitor, and Parking Counts (TVP) Study determined that arrivals of cruise 

ships in Lihue had an impact on the number and timing of KPNWR visitors. 

Therefore, visitor projections should take into account the recent growth in the 

cruise ship industry. The “Visitor Perception and Economic Valuation Research 

for KPNWR,” conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey – Policy Analysis and 

Science Assistance (PASA) investigators, was based on data collected in 2003 

and 2004. This study indicated that approximately 2 percent of KPNWR visitors 

arrived in Kauai by cruise ship (PASA Survey Table 3, Question 2). 

Based on discussions with Mr. Cy Feng of DBEDT (April 2005), and analysis of 

DBEDT’s data for cruise arrivals, it is anticipated that the number of visitors to 

Kauai arriving by cruise ships will continue to grow at a higher rate than visitation 

to Kauai as a whole75. Similarly, the percentage of KPNWR visitors arriving by 

cruise ship is likely to increase from the current 2 percent estimated in the PASA 

report. However, cruise ship passengers typically spend only one day or so on 

Kauai, compared with seven days for those arriving by air. The short time cruise 

passengers spend on Kauai tends to reduce the chance they will visit the 

Refuge. As a result, the vast majority of KPNWR visitors will continue to arrive to 

Kauai by airplane. 

Future Growth Rate Scenarios at KPNWR 

Given the information provided above, there are three primary factors that 

influence past and future growth rates: 

• Visitor Services 

• Access Options and Infrastructure 

• Entrance Fees 

This section describes how variations in those factors were used to generate 

three potential growth scenarios: 

• Low Growth Rate 

• Mid-Range Growth Rate, and 

• High Growth Rate. 

These growth rates will be applied to current peak and off-peak visitation levels 

to achieve the five-year, ten-year, and twenty-year peak and off-peak season 

projections in the next section (Visitation Forecasts). 

 

75 For example, the number of visitors arriving to Kauai by cruise ship jumped by 33 percent in 

2005 compared with 2004, representing about 20 percent of total visitors. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff A-9 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 Appendix A 

Low Growth Rate Scenario

The Low Growth Rate reflects changes in attendance that could result from 

reduced tourism due to visitor capacity issues in Kauai, increases in the Refuge 

entrance fee, and/or reduction in visitor services at KPNWR. 

The Hawaii Tourism Authority (HTA) projects a growth rate for Kauai on the order 

of 1 percent per year (Hawaii Tourism Strategic Plan, 2005-2015, adopted in 

October 2004; Frank Haas, HTA, August 2005). HTA believes that Kauai is 

reaching its capacity in terms of accommodations (lodging, short-term housing), 

and cannot sustain visitation growth rates experienced to date. HTA indicates 

that unless there is a significant increase in Kauai’s infrastructure (water, sewer, 

and roads), the accommodations capacity - rather than market demand - will 

become the limiting factor to tourism. 

Another factor that could constrain the growth in visitations to KNPWR is an 

increase in the entrance fee. USFWS has indicated that entry fees may increase 

by as much as $2 within the next few years. The USFWS is also considering 

making changes to visitor services at the Refuge. These changes could 

decrease or increase the number of visitors and/or the duration of visits to 

KPNWR.76 For example, USFWS has stated that there is a possibility they would 

reduce visitor services offered at the Refuge if adverse impacts to wildlife or 

ecological concerns are observed. Therefore, it is uncertain at this time what 

potential changes in visitor services may be made, if any and what impact that 

would have on the number of visitors. 

Given the discussion above, for purposes of this study, the Low Growth Rate 

Scenario reflects conditions with no significant increase in infrastructure on the 

island of Kauai; a possible small increase in the entrance fee, and a possible 

reduction in visitor services. Thus, the Low Growth Rate was assumed to be 1.0 

percent per year, consistent with the estimate by the HTA. 

Mid-Range Growth Rate Scenario

The Mid-Range Growth Rate was developed assuming that visitor services 

offered at the Refuge and the transportation system (parking and vehicle access) 

both remain at the existing condition (“status quo”). 

According to the report Population and Economic Projections for the State of 

Hawaii to 2030 by DBEDT (August 2004) Kauai’s growth rates in “de facto” (nonKauai resident) visitor population, will be approximately 1.4 percent per year 

between 2005 and 2015, and 1.3 percent per year between 2015 and 2025. This 

combination results in an approximate overall average of 1.35 percent per year 

 

76 Some questions in the PASA surveys indicate that visitation is correlated with visitor service 

levels. Although the PASA surveys did not ask visitors if they would return if services were 

reduced; questions were asked whether or not they would extend their stay at KPNWR, if certain 

services were added for a fee. A significant majority (70 percent or more) said that they would 

extend their stay if there were a minor increase in fees ($1-3). 
Parsons Brinckerhoff A-10 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 Appendix A 

growth rate between 2005 and 2025, which is higher than HTA’s more 

conservative growth rate. This average was rounded up to 1.4% and used for 

the Mid-Range Growth Rate. 

High Growth Rate Scenario

This scenario represents a high future growth rate, reflecting the increased level 

of growth in visitation that has occurred on Kauai over the past decade or so. 

This scenario factors in a potential increase in visitor services and possible 

improved access, resulting in more and/or longer visitations at the Refuge. This 

scenario also accounts for the possibility that infrastructure and accommodations 

capacity could be increased on Kauai, which would accommodate a higher 

visitation growth rate. 

The Kauai visitation average annual growth rate since 1994 has been slightly 

more than 2 percent per year. For the purposes of this study, the High Growth 

Rate Scenario used a growth rate of 2.2 percent per year. 

Summary of Growth Rate Scenarios at KPNWR 

Given the uncertainty of predicting future growth in visitation at KPNWR, three 

growth scenarios were established for this report: 

• Low Growth Rate of 1 percent per year 

• Mid-Range Growth Rate of 1.4 percent per year 

• High Growth Rate of 2.2 percent per year 
Parsons Brinckerhoff A-11 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 Appendix A 

Visitation Forecasts 

Visitation forecasts were developed for three time horizons: short-term (5-year or 

2010), medium-term (10-year or 2015), and long-term (20 year or 2025). 

Annual Forecasts 

Future visitation for three horizon years was estimated by applying the three 

growth rates (described in the previous section) to an estimate of existing (2005) 

visitations. The horizon years are as follows: 

• Short-Term forecast – Represents the situation within a five-year period, 

to the year 2010, which corresponds to the time required to phase-in initial 

improvements or “stop-gap” transportation measures. 

• Mid-Term forecast – Represents the ten-year horizon (2015), which may 

correspond with a transitional period between short-term and long-term 

transportation solutions. 

• Long-Term forecast – Represents a 20-year period, or the year 2025. 

This forecast addresses longer-term planning, seeking to design 

transportation alternatives that will have at least a 20-year lifecycle. 

Table 2 below, displays annual visitation forecasts for KPNWR. The annual 

forecast for calendar year (CY) 2005 was extrapolated from actual visitor count 

data from a five-month period (July 16 to December 15, 2005). Methods 

considered for estimating 2005 visitation, as well as available visitor count data, 

are shown in Attachment A. An examination of fee receipts from fiscal years 

(FY) 2000-2004 indicates that the period from mid-July to mid-December 

accounted for 40.51% of annual visitations. Applying this share to the 87,027 

visitors counted from July 16 to December 15, 2005 results in an estimate for CY 

2005 of approximately 215,000 annual visitors. 

During the 2003 TVP survey, auto occupancy rates (persons per vehicle) were 

found to be slightly higher in summer (3.1 persons per vehicle) than in spring (2.7 

persons per vehicle). An average occupancy rate of 2.9 persons per vehicle was 

applied to the projected visitation numbers to estimate the future number of 

vehicles shown in the tables below. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff A-12 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 Appendix A 

 Table 2. KPNWR Visitation Growth Forecasts (Annual) 

Year Low Growth 

Rate Scenario

Mid-Range 

Growth Rate 

Scenario 

High Growth 

Rate 

Scenario 

Persons 

2005 (estimate of 

existing annual 

visitors) 

215,00077

Average Annual 

Growth Rate 1.0% 1.4% 2.2%

Short-term: 

2010 (Five-year 

projection) 

226,000 230,500 239,700 

Mid-term: 

2015 (10-year 

projection) 

237,500 247,100 267,300 

Long-term: 

2025 (20-year 

projection) 

262,300 283,900 332,200 

Growth 2005-2025) 22% 32% 55% 

All Vehicles 

2005 (estimate of 

existing annual 

vehicles) 74,10078

Short-term: 

2010 (Five-year 

projection) 

77,900 79,500 82,700 

Mid-term: 

2015 (10-year 

projection) 

81,900 85,200 92,200 

Long-term: 

2025 (20-year 

projection) 

90,500 97,900 114,600 

Growth (2005-

2025) 22% 32% 55% 

 

77 Based on extrapolation of actual count data from July-December 2005 78 Based on average occupancy of 2.9 persons per vehicle. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff A-13 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 Appendix A 

Seasonal Variation and Daily Forecasts 

Another purpose of the ATS Study is to examine Refuge visitation in both the 

peak and off-peak seasons, to determine if there should be seasonal changes in 

potential transportation alternatives, such as running a shuttle only during peak 

seasons. Therefore, seasonal variation in visitation at the Refuge is examined in 

this report. The Transit and Parking Demand Projections Report will use this 

information to make recommendations about the applicability of seasonally 

differentiated transportation services. Daily variations in visitor patterns within 

the same season may also be present, but were not examined as part of this 

report. 

To calculate seasonal fluctuations, KPNWR entrance fee-box receipts from FY 

2000 through 2004 were compiled and averaged by month, season, and 

combination of seasons79. This data is shown in Attachment B. Monthly 

fluctuations are shown in Figure 2, below, while seasonal variation is shown in 

Figure 3. For the purpose of this study, winter is defined as January through 

March, spring is April through June, summer is July through September and fall 

is October through December. In Figure 4, winter, spring and summer were 

combined to represent the peak visitation season; whereas, fall represents the 

off-peak season. 

As shown in Figure 3 below, the highest visitor season, winter, is about 18 

percent higher than the lowest visitor season, fall. When combined into peak and 

off-peak, as in Figure 4, visitations in winter, spring and summer are about 17 

percent higher than fall. 

Daily peak-season visitor forecasts were developed by dividing the annual 

estimate by a daily-to-annual factor of 329. This factor was calculated by 

comparing fee receipts from a typical peak season day in March and August to 

average annual receipts (See Attachment B for more detail). It is similar to what 

is used by FHWA, state departments of transportation, the Federal Transit 

Administration, and transit agencies, when converting from a typical peak daily or 

weekday number to an annual count, or visa versa. Daily peak-season visitor 

forecasts are shown in Table 3, below. 

Peak visitor projections were adjusted downward by 17 percent to develop the 

daily off-peak visitor forecast displayed in Table 4, below. 

While very large seasonal variations in attendance occur at national parks and 

similar destinations in the mainland United States, this is not the case at 

KPNWR. The seasonal change of 17 to 18 percent at KPNWR is not large 

compared with parks on the mainland. For example, Zion National Park typically 

attracts about 325,000 visitors per month during the summer but only about 

 

79 During this time when the “honor box system was still in place, KPNW staff could not effectively 

track the number of visitors, due to non-payment by some. However, it is assumed that the rate 

of non-payment would not vary across months or seasons. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff A-14 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 Appendix A 

75,000 per month during winter, which is a 77 percent decrease80. While 

visitation at KPNWR does vary from month to month, the difference between the 

highest (February and August) and lowest (December) month is only about 29 

percent. 

Figure 2. KPNWR Monthly Dollar Receipts (Entrance Fees) 

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

Sept.

October

November

December

Month

Average Visitor Receipts

Source: PB summary of KPNWR receipt data from FY2000 - 2004.

 

80 http://www.nps.gov/zion/visitation%20statistics.htm 
Parsons Brinckerhoff A-15 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 Appendix A 

Figure 3. KPNWR Seasonal Receipts (Entrance Fees) 

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

Winter 

(Jan-Mar)

Spring 

(Apr-Jun)

Summer 

(Jul-Sep)

 Fall 

(Oct-Dec)

Season

Average Monthly Receipts

Source: PB summary of KPNWR receipt data from FY 2000 - 2004. 

Figure 4. Average Monthly Dollar Receipts (Entrance Fees) by Combined 

Seasons (Peak vs. Off-Peak) 

Source: PB summary of KPNWR receipt data from FY 2000 - 2004 

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

Winter/Spring/Summer Fall

Combined Seasons

Average Monthly Receipts

17% 

Difference

Peak

OffPeak
Parsons Brinckerhoff A-16 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 Appendix A 

Table 3. KPNWR Visitation Growth Forecasts (Daily, Peak Season81)

Year Low Growth 

Rate Scenario

Mid-Range 

Growth Rate 

Scenario 

High Growth 

Rate 

Scenario 

Persons 

2005 (estimate of 

existing daily 

visitors) 

65382

Average Annual 

Growth Rate 1.0% 1.4% 2.2% 

Short-term: 

2010 (5-year 

projection) 

690 700 730 

Mid-term: 

2015 (10-year 

projection) 

720 750 810 

Long-term: 

2025 (20-year 

projection) 

800 860 1010 

Growth Projection 

(2005-2025) 22% 32% 55% 

All Vehicles 

2005 (estimate of 

existing daily 

vehicles) 

22583

Short-term: 

2010 (5-year 

projection) 

240 240 250 

Mid-term: 

2015 (10-year 

projection) 

250 260 280 

Long-term: 

2025 (20-year 

projection) 

280 300 350 

Growth Projection 

(2005-2025) 22% 32% 55% 

 

81 Peak season is defined as winter, spring and summer, combined. 82 Based on extrapolation of actual count data from July-December 2005, divided by 329. 83 Based on average occupancy of 2.9 persons per vehicle. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff A-17 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 Appendix A 

Table 4. KPNWR Visitation Growth Forecasts (Daily, Off-Peak Season84)

Year Low Growth 

Rate Scenario

Mid-Range 

Growth Rate 

Scenario 

High Growth 

Rate 

Scenario 

Persons 

2005 (estimate of 

existing daily 

visitors) 

54785

Average Annual 

Growth Rate 1.0% 1.4% 2.2% 

Short-term: 

2010 (5-year 

projection) 

580 590 610 

Mid-term: 

2015 (10-year 

projection) 

600 630 680 

Long-term: 

2025 (20-year 

projection) 

670 720 850 

Growth Projection 

(2005-2025) 22% 32% 55% 

All Vehicles 

2005 (estimate of 

existing daily 

vehicles) 

18986

Short-term: 

2010 (5-year 

projection) 

200 200 210 

Mid-term: 

2015 (10-year 

projection) 

210 220 230 

Long-term: 

2025 (20-year 

projection) 

230 250 290 

Growth Projection 

(2005-2025) 22% 32% 55% 

 

84 Off-peak season is defined as fall (October-December). 85Estimate of daily peak season visitors, adjusted downward by 17 percent. 86Based on average occupancy of 2.9 persons per vehicle. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff A-18 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 Appendix A 

Summary 

• Visitation to the Refuge is estimated to be about 215,000 in 2005. 

• Visitor growth over the next 20 years may range from 1.0 to 2.2 percent 

per year. Under the Mid-Range Growth Rate Scenario (which assumes 

1.4 percent growth per year), there would be about 32 percent more 

visitors in 2025 than today (2005). A Low Growth Rate Scenario would 

result in 22 percent more visitors, while a High Growth Rate Scenario 

would result in an increase of 55 percent. 

• Seasonal variability in visitation is not large at KPNWR compared to 

similar destinations on the U.S. Mainland. Visitation to KPNWR tends to 

peak in the winter, spring and summer, declining about 17% in fall. 

• Implications of future visitor projections and seasonal variability on parking 

and transit demand will be discussed in the subsequent Transit and 

Parking Projections Report. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff A-19 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 Appendix A 

List of References 

Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism, State of Hawaii. 

Population and Economic Projections for the State of Hawaii to 2030. 

<www3.hawaii.gov/DBEDT/images/User_FilesImages/latestdata/Longrange_Projections_-_2030/Series2030Report_rev8-13-04_a974.pdf>. 

August 2004. 

Hawaii Tourism Strategic Plan, 2005-2015, adopted in October 2004 (Hawaii 

Tourism Authority); phone discussion with Frank Haas, HTA, August 2005. 

Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc. Traffic, Visitor, and Parking 

Counts Study. January 2004. 

Sexton, N.R., S.C. Gillette, L. Koontz, S.C. Stewart, J. Loomis, and K. Wundrock, 

2005, Visitor and Community Survey Results for Kilauea Point National 

Wildlife Refuge and Lighthouse: Completion Report, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Biological Resources Discipline, Open-File Report 2005-1420, 

November 2005, 221p. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge entrance 

fees receipt data, 2000-2004. 

Wilkinson, Todd. “Buses and Trains Amid Towering Cliffs: At More Parks, 

Visitors Leave the Car Behind.” Christian Science Monitor. May 2001.
Parsons Brinckerhoff A-20 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 Appendix A 

Attachment A: Estimate of 2005 Refuge Visitations 

Methods Considered for Estimating 2005 Refuge Visitations 

One purpose of this report is to estimate Refuge visitations in calendar year (CY) 

2005, which then becomes the base year for developing future-year projections. 

A new entrance fee booth was installed at the Refuge in the summer of 2005, 

and from that point forward more reliable visitor data is available. For this report, 

three methods were considered to update 2003 observations to CY2005 

estimates: 

1. Use the newly available empirical data, i.e., 2005 fee collections and 

visitor count data, which was generated after the “honor system” pay box 

was replaced with the new “mandatory system” fee booth inside the 

Refuge in July 2005. A visitation estimate for 2005 would be calculated by 

extrapolating the available five months of data (July 16 to December 15, 

2005) into an annual count. 

2. Continue counting visitors in 2005 and into 2006, to gather data for a sixor nine-month period, to generate a more accurate annual estimate. This 

could require waiting until May 2006 to finalize the visitor projections and 

the subsequent Transit and Parking Demand Projections reports. 

3. Compare the August, September and October 2005, fee receipt collection 

data to prior years, to determine if there is a change in visitation. Previous 

data would be adjusted to compensate for those who reported “not paying 

the entry fee” in the PASA surveys, for reasons other than using a pass 

(approximately 6 percent of total). 

The outcome of each method is described below: 

Method #1 results in an estimate of 215,000 annual visitors to the Refuge in 

CY2005. This would appear to be a 15 percent decrease from annual 

projections resulting from the data in the 2003 TVP Study. A decrease in 

visitation is inconsistent with KPNWR staff observations, and with the overall 

increase in tourism being reported on Kauai. However, the 2003 annual visitor 

estimates are based on only four days of data collection extrapolated out to an 

entire year; while the 2005 data is from five months of actual visitor counts. 

Therefore, it would seem the 2005 data is more accurate than the 2003 data. 

Method #2 would provide a more accurate estimate than Method #1, but would 

result in a three to six month delay in the Study. CFLHD/USFWS has provided 

direction not to delay the issuance of the Visitor Projection Report. 

Method #3 indicates an overall increase in fee receipts from estimated 2003 

conditions. This was determined by observing the August, September and 

October entry fee collections for FY2003, and adjusting them upward by 6 
Parsons Brinckerhoff A-21 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 Appendix A 

percent to account for those not paying the fee. Comparing fee receipts from 

FY2003 to 2005, indicates that visitor fees, and thus the number of visitors, have 

increased by 12% since 2003. This is logical because anecdotal and other data 

indicate an overall increase in visitations since 2003. However, the 2003 TVP 

Report visitor projections may have been high due to the small sample (four days 

of data). 

It was determined that Method #1 would be used for the 2005 estimate of refuge 

visitation, because it appears to be based on the most accurate data available at 

this time. A reevaluation of available visitor data will be conducted during the 

next (NEPA) phase of the ATS Study, and projections may be updated at that 

time. 

Estimate of CY2005 Refuge Visitations 

Month 

Average Fee 

Receipts 

(FY2000-

2004) 

Percent of 

Annual 

Actual 

CY2005 

Visitors 

January $31,397 8.22% 

February $35,163 9.21% 

March $34,562 9.05% 

April $31,093 8.14% 

May $33,269 8.71% 

June $32,773 8.58% 

July $34,578 9.06% 10,150 

(July 16-31) 

August $35,106 9.20% 18,951 

September $31,502 8.25% 15,611 

October $32,547 8.53% 17,677 

November $25,961 6.80% 17,125 

December $24,499 6.42% 7,513 

(Dec 1-15) 

Estimated Annual Visitors for CY2005 215,212 
Parsons Brinckerhoff A-22 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 Appendix A 

Attachment B: Estimating Peak-Day to Annual 

Expansion Factor 

Monthly Visitation Receipts, Averaged for FY2000-2004 

Month Average Receipts 

for Month 

January $31,397 

February $35,163 

March $34,562 

April $31,093 

May $33,269 

June $32,773 

July $34,578 

August $35,106 

September $31,502 

October $32,547 

November $25,961 

December $24,499 

TOTAL YEARLY $382,450 

March/August monthly 

average87

$34,834 

March/August average day $1,161 

Conversion factor (annual 

divided by peak day) 

329 

Season

Average Monthly 

Receipts

Winter (Jan-Mar) $33,707 

Spring (Apr-Jun) $32,378 

Summer (Jul-Sep) $33,503 

Fall (Oct-Dec) $27,669 

 

Peak Season (winter, spring 

and summer combined) $33,196 

Off-Peak Season (fall) $27,669 

Difference, Peak to Off-Peak 17% 

 

87 March and August were used to match the dates studied in the Traffic, Visitor, and Parking 

Counts Study in 2003. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff B-1 KPNWR ATS Final Report

September 2006 Appendix B 

Appendix B: 

Testimony by FWS on Kilauea Town Plan 
Parsons Brinckerhoff B-2 KPNWR ATS Final Report

September 2006 Appendix B 
Parsons Brinckerhoff C-1 KP

September 2006 

Appendix C: 

Conceptual Transportation Alternatives 

Alt. NAME 

(Figure #, 

if any) 

DESCRIPTION Capita

l Cost 

Estim

ate 

Annual Cost 

Estimate 

Meet 

Purpose 

&Need? 

PRO

1 No-Build

(Figures 1, 2, 3) 

• No physical change from existing onsite 

conditions: 

o Limited parking with peak-period overflow 

parking 

o Refuge staff act as parking attendants, as 

necessary, to maintain visitor safety and manage available space on Kilauea Point 

o Pedestrian and large bus access 

prohibited/restricted 

o Manned ticket booth (as of 27Jun05) 

• Traffic/parking demand at Overlook and Kilauea 

Point continues to increase as visitation to Kauai grows 

Recommended action: • Hire parking attendant 

No initial costs. 

$35,000-40,000/yr 

No. • No 

construcdisturbacommunand wild

• No 

construcor improvecosts 

• Additiona

manpowfrees up Refuge s
Parsons Brinckerhoff C-2 KP

September 2006 

2 Minor 

Improvements/ Transportation System Management (Figure 4)

• Little or no physical change from existing onsite 

conditions; Manage existing access and parking facilities - keep same number of parking spaces: 

o Provide seasonal / peak-period traffic and 

parking information on KPNWR website or in tourist information publications 

o Provide visitors with “real-time” parking 

information via signs / radio messages / mobile technologies (Figure 4) 

o Hire parking attendant 

Under $500,000 

$130,000-150,000/yr 

Partially But does not minimize traffic impacts on Kilauea Town. 

• Little or n

construcdisturbacommunand wild

• Minor cos

construcmainten

• Parking i

redistribparking demand 

2.1 Additional 

options

o Limit number of parking spaces and/or 

duration (e.g. upper parking area on Point designated for 30-minute parking; Overlook parking designated for 10-minute parking) 

o Congestion pricing: Vary entrance fees by 

season or time of day 

o Designate reserved parking spaces or reduce 

entrance fees to encourage use of (private, tour-operator) shuttle van services 

Similar to above. 

Incremental additional management cost likely 

Same as above 

• Encourag

quicker parking turnover 

3 Moderate 

Improvements (Figures 5-1 through 5-4; Figure 6; Figure 7; Figure 8)

• Moderate physical changes from existing onsite 

conditions; improve access and parking supply to meet long-term demand 

o Overlook Improvements - Improve and/or 

expand Overlook shuttle van waiting, parking, and viewing areas. Allow private shuttle vans to park at Kilauea Point (Figures 5-1 through 5-4) 

o Parking Improvements - Improve/expand 

parking lot configuration at Kilauea Point, including shuttle van pick-up/drop-off area (Figure 6) 

Under $ 3.5 Million 

$130,000-150,000/yr (same as Alt 2) 

Partially But, does not minimize traffic impacts on Kilauea Town. If habitat is reduced, is also not consistent 

• Improves 

parking, shuttle waiting, viewing 

• Reduces 

current vehiculacongestproblem 

• May 

encouramore Re
Parsons Brinckerhoff C-3 KP

September 2006 

• Optional Elements: 

o Entrance Road Improvements - Widen refuge 

entrance road to better accommodate shuttle vans and/or bicycles/pedestrians (walk bikes in); Provide bicycle/pedestrian path to Overlook and/or Point (Figure 7) 

o Porous paving – Consider using grass or 

other environmentally friendly surface for new paved areas (Figure 8) 

o Hire parking attendant 

• NOTE: 

o Refuge staff in favor of re-configuring Point 

parking lot into one-way circulation 

o Refuge staff not in favor of expanding parking 

and reducing habitat 

o Hike access at Overlook no longer needed. If 

Refuge guided hikes are reinstated, they would start at Sea Cliff Estates 

o Pedestrian path may not be feasible, given 

need to widen road and affect bird habitat

with conservation programs. Does not meet Refuge Compatibility requirements. 

visitation 

• Reduced 

for parkimanageby staff 

• May impr

bike, pedestriand/or sbus acce

Scheme 1 (Figure 5-1)(Modified by PB, June 2005; from OTAK, June 2002) 

• Longer 

queuing available 

Scheme 2 (Figure 5-2) (OTAK, June 2002) Scheme 3 (Figure 5-3)(Modified by PB, June 2005; from OTAK, June 2002) 

• Aesthetic

pleasing design 

Overlook Improvements

Scheme 4 (Figure 5-4) (PB, June 2005) • Minimal 

change 
Parsons Brinckerhoff C-4 KP

September 2006 

4 Refuge 

Transit with Private Vehicle Access

(Figure 9 and others)

• Dedicated Refuge Transit system – to provide 

regularly-scheduled pick-up / drop-off at KPNWR Overlook and Kilauea Point 

o Two 25-passenger shuttle buses (or smaller) 

used for cost estimate 

o Transit operator is third-party (not USFWS) o Year-round service, but headways may be 

lower in off-peak season 

o Allow private vehicle access and parking, at 

same entrance fee price as transit users 

o Allow private shuttle vans to park at Kilauea 

Point 

• Offsite Park & Ride in Kilauea Town

o Some KPNWR services and facilities relocated to Park & Ride, such as bookstore, 

ticketing office, some administrative functions; equipment storage and maintenance 

• Other Physical Improvements (similar to Alt #3)

o Overlook Improvements - same as above 

(Figures 5-1 through 5-4) 

• Optional Elements: 

o Entrance Road Improvements – same as 

above (Figure 7) 

o Existing parking lot at Point may be 

reconfigured to provide more open space 

o Porous paving – same as above (Figure 8)

Under $6 Million, excluding property acquisition for Park & Ride ($2.5 Million) 

$320,000 -$720,000, for two vehicles in operation, including all costs to maintain and driver salaries. Cost may vary more depending on operating assumptions 

Yes (Depends in part on location of Hub. Kuhio Highway Hub will remove more visitor traffic from going through town than the Post Office site, unless the bypass is built, in which case both Hub locations are equal) 

• Potential 

reduction private vtraffic thrKilauea T(dependilocation oHub) 

• Increases 

options fRefuge smanage visitation and impawildlife 

• Improves 

safety in Kilauea, Overlookon the Po

• Non-esse

KPNWR facilities be moveoffsite P&

• May impr

business opportunand touriKilauea T

• May impr

bike, pedestriaand/or shbus acce
Parsons Brinckerhoff C-5 KP

September 2006 

5 Refuge 

Transit ONLY

(Figure 9 and others)

• Same as Alternative 4, but private vehicle 

access is NOT allowed to Point; parking lot improvements limited to shuttle van areas. Private vehicle access is allowed to Overlook. 

• Three or Four 25-passenger shuttle 

buses used 

• Optional Element: 

o Existing parking lot at Point may be 

reconfigured to provide more open space 

Under $6.5 Million, excluding property acquisition for Park & Ride ($3 Million) Optional Cost: Parking lot reconfiguration under $1.0 Million. 

$480,000 – over $1 Million, including all costs to maintain and driver salaries. Cost may vary more depending on operating assumptions

Yes (Depends in part on location of Hub. Kuhio Highway Hub will remove more visitor traffic from going through town than the Post Office site, unless the bypass is built, in which case both Hub locations are equal) 

• Similar to 

Alternative plus the following: 

• Greatly red

private vehtraffic throuKilauea Tomore than Alternative 

• Private veh

access to Refuge prohibited, making vismanagemeeasier 

• Point parkin

area may breconfigureless conge(more open space) 

• Less staff a

administratrequirementhan Alt. 4 
Parsons Brinckerhoff D-1 KP

September 2006 

Appendix D: 

Conceptual Alternatives - Site Plan Concepts and Sample Technologies 

Existing Parking Lot Configuration at Kilauea Point
Parsons Brinckerhoff D-2 KP

September 2006 

Conceptual Parking Lot Configuration at Kilauea Point
Parsons Brinckerhoff D-3 KP

September 2006 

Conceptual Parking Lot Configuration at the Overlook – Scheme 1
Parsons Brinckerhoff D-4 KP

September 2006 

Conceptual Parking Lot Configuration at the Overlook – Scheme 2
Parsons Brinckerhoff D-5 KP

September 2006 

Conceptual Parking Lot Configuration at the Overlook – Scheme 3
Parsons Brinckerhoff D-6 KP

September 2006 

Conceptual Parking Lot Configuration at the Overlook – Scheme 4
Parsons Brinckerhoff D-7 KP

September 2006 

Conceptual Access Road Improvements
Parsons Brinckerhoff D-8 KP

September 2006 

Conceptual Parking Lot Configuration at Hub Park-and-Ride
Parsons Brinckerhoff D-9 KP

September 2006 

Examples of Stabilized Grass Parking Surfaces
Parsons Brinckerhoff D-10 KP

September 2006 

Examples of ITS Sign Applications
Parsons Brinckerhoff E-1 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 Appendix E

Appendix E: 

Assumed Effect of Increased Entry Fee on Visitation 

The assumed effect of an increased entry fee on KPNWR visitation was 

developed using PASA’s survey results (Sexton, et al, November, 2005), which 

indicates the possible visitation impact of fee increases. The PASA survey 

results, however, need to be taken in context. One factor to consider is that the 

PASA surveys were conducted on visitors who had already entered and 

experienced the Refuge. (In general, their experience was enjoyable, according 

to PASA.) Therefore, the survey data may not be a clear indicator of perceptions 

by people who are first considering paying a fee to enter the Refuge. 

An important change also occurred at the Refuge since the PASA surveys were 

conducted. At the time, the Refuge collected fees using an unstaffed “honor box” 

system, under which underpayment was common. They now have a staffed fee 

collection booth. Recent data from the fee booth were used in this Final Report 

to estimate the number of future visitors. 

Keeping in mind these possible limitations of the data, PASA survey results were 

used as a reference for determining a) willingness to pay for a shuttle service 

with guided narration, and b) impact of higher entry fees to cover the costs of 

shuttle operations. Both items are discussed below. 

Visitor Willingness to Pay for a shuttle with Guided Narration

Offering guided narration would be a key feature of any transit system. As 

explained in the main body of this report, it is assumed that the attractiveness of 

guided narration on the shuttle would negate the effect of raising the entry fee to 

$5. This conclusion is demonstrated in the table below showing Visitor 

Willingness to Pay (WTP). Derived from Table 4-4 of the PASA report, Table E1, 

below, shows the mean WTP for entry to KNPWR among winter and summer 

visitors.88

Mean WTP for visitors for entry fee alone was found to average $12.00 (average 

of $13.58 and $10.44), while mean WTP for entry fee with a narrated shuttle bus 

ride was found to be $15.75 (average of $17.24 and $14.27). While it the added 

“value” of a shuttle with guided narration appears to be $3.75 at the mean price 

of $12.00, it is not clear what the value is at other price points. For purposes of 

this study, it was simply assumed that visitors currently willing to pay $3 for entry 

fee alone, would also be willing to pay $5 if the price included a shuttle ride with 

guided narration. Therefore, this report assumes a shuttle system base case of 

no reduction in visitation at $5, compared to current visitation the $3 entry fee. 

 

88 Community members were also surveyed, but were not included in the calculations. As would 

be expected, there is significant difference in willingness to pay the entry fee between visitors and 

community members. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff E-2 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 Appendix E

Table E1: Visitor Willingness to Pay Entry Fee 

Refuge Entrance Only Refuge Entrance with 

Shuttle and Guide 

Winter 

Visitors 

Summer 

Visitors 

Winter 

Visitors 

Summer 

Visitors 

Mean WTP 

per person $13.58 $10.44 $17.24 $14.27 

Annual 

Average $12.00 $15.75 

“Value” of 

Shuttle 

with Guide 

$3.75 

($15.75 minus $12.00) 

Source: PASA, November 2005, as revised by Parsons Brinckerhoff, May 2006. 

Impact of Higher Entry Fee

To determine the impact of higher fees, Figure 4-2 of the PASA report was 

consulted. This graph, entitled “Probability of Paying for Shuttle with Guide,” 

indicated how many visitors may opt to take the shuttle at each price. It appears 

that increasing the fee by one dollar may reduce visitation by about 3 percent.89 

However, due to limitations of PASA data described above, this Final Report 

conservatively assumes a 5 percent visitation reduction per one-dollar increase. 

Assuming the 5 percent reduction per dollar, the expected reduction (relative to 

projected visitation at the current entry fee) in visitation at various entry fees can 

be expressed in Table E2, shown below: 

Table E2: Expected Reduction in Visitation with Higher Entry Fees90

Entry Fee 

Charged 

Expected 

Reduction in 

Visitation 

$5 0 

$6 5% 

$7 10% 

$8 15% 

$9 20% 

$10 25% 

$11 30% 

Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, May 2006. 

 

89 Based on examining Winter and Summer visitor curves in Figure 4-2 of PASA report, 

“Probability of Paying for Shuttle with Guide.” 

90 Calculations do not include 4 annual free days. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff F-1 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 Appendix F

Appendix F: 

Private Vendor Operating Costs 

POLYNESIAN ADVENTURE TOURS 

Retail Rates (per hour) 

VEHICLE TYPE OAHU MAUI, KAUAI, 

HAWAII

14 PASSENGER VAN $73.50 $86.00 

25 PASSENGER MINI-COACH $92.50 $113.50 

MOTORCOACH $113.50 $135.50 

Sample Charter Hours (Inclusive of vehicle preparation and deadhead time)

OAHU 

Honolulu Airport to Waikiki or reverse 2.0 hours 

Honolulu Airport to Kahala Hilton or reverse 3.0 hours 

KAUAI 

Airport to Wailua-Waipouli or reverse 2.0 hours 

Airport to Poipu or reverse 2.5 hours 

Airport to Princeville or reverse 3.0 hours 

MAUI 

Airport to Makena, Kihei, Wailea or reverse 2.0 hours 

Airport to Lahaina/Kaanapali or reverse 2.5 hours 

Airport to Honokawai/Kahana or reverse 3.0 hours 

Airport to Napili/Kapalua or reverse 3.5 hours 

KONA 

Keahole Airport to Keauhou through Kailua-Kona 2.0 hours 

Keahole Airport to Kona Village/ Four Seasons or reverse 2.0 hours 

Keahole Airport to Waikoloa/Mauna Lani or reverse 2.0 hours 

Keahole Airport to Mauna Kea or reverse 2.5 hours 

Hilo Airport to Hilo hotels or reverse 2.0 hours 

• 4.166% Hawaii State Tax will be added to all charter rates. (tax is calculated on gross 

transportation rates). Minimum charter time is 2 hours. 

• Barn to barn time varies and is based on pick-up and drop-off locations. 

• Airport tax of 7% (Honolulu International Airport) and 3% (neighbor islands) is added 

to the first two hours of any charter, which originates at the airport. This tax is 

calculated on the first 2 hours based on gross transportation rates. 

• All rates are based on Hawaii Public Utilities Commission tariff determinations and are 

subject to change without prior notification. 

• Contact our sales department for rate structure and quotations on customized group 

movements. 
Parsons Brinckerhoff G-1 KPNWR ATS Final Report 

September 2006 Appendix G

Appendix G: 

Kilauea Town Plan – Bypass Road Options 

The figure below is taken directly from the Kilauea Town Plan – DRAFT. The 

Plan shows two distinct options for the potential bypass road alignment.