2015 - 2035

PWRO JUNE 2015

A 20-year plan for guiding transportation infrastructure 

management and investment in the Pacific West Region

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Pacific West Region

Long Range Transportation Plan
   
Pacific West Region Long Range Transportation Plan 

June 2015 

Prepared by 

Justin De Santis, Transportation Program Manager, Pacific West Region 

Acknowledgements 

Dianne Croal, Alternative Transportation Program Manager, Pacific West Region 

Dave Kruse, Chief, Facility Management, Pacific West Region 

Bill Eshbaugh, Pavement Management System Manager, FHWA/Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 

Yohannes Mesfin, Structural Engineer, FHWA/Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 

Quinn Nguyen, Bridge Management Team Leader, FHWA/Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 

Tom Ronay, FMP Coordinator, Pacific West Region 

Edited by Suzanne Brinkley, Partnerships Program, Pacific West Region 

Cover photo: Northeast side of Mount Rainier, with the Sunrise Road providing access to the subalpine 

meadows of Yakima Park (photo by John Chao) 

Back photo: Bridge over Halstead Meadow, Sequoia National Park (photo by NPS) 

Cover design: Brad Phillips, Park Planning and Environmental Compliance, Pacific West Region 

 

Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page i 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... iii 

Introduction and Background .................................................................................................... 1 

Transportation Goals and Objectives ......................................................................................... 4

The Pacific West Region Transportation Portfolio .................................................................... 5 

The PWR Transportation Program ............................................................................................ 14 

Access to the Park Boundary ..................................................................................................... 26 

Potential Threats Posed by Climate Change ............................................................................ 28 

Transportation and Resource Protection ................................................................................. 29 

Financial Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 33 

Needs Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 38 

Maintaining Access: 2015 to 2035 ............................................................................................ 51 

Glossary of Selected Acronyms and Terms ............................................................................... 55 

Appendix 1 Congestion Mapping ............................................................................................. 59 

Appendix 2 TRIP Grants History in PWR ................................................................................... 73

 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page ii 

Tables 

Table 1. List of the Pacific West Region Parks .......................................................................... vi 

Table 2. Alternative Transportation Systems: Primary Purpose ................................................ 8 

Table 3. Alternative Transportation Systems ........................................................................... 9 

Table 4. Annual Federal Lands Access Program Funding by State ......................................... 27 

Table 5. Programmed FLAP Projects Benefitting PWR Parks .................................................. 27 

Table 6. Air Quality Non-Attainment ....................................................................................... 31 

Table 7. PWR Primary Fund Sources and Work Types ............................................................. 34 

Table 8. Operations and Maintenance Needs in 2015 ........................................................... 42 

Table 9. Significant Projects for NPS Facilities ......................................................................... 43 

Table 10. Pavement Condition Ratings and 2035 Targets ...................................................... 46 

Table 11. PWR Projected Annual Transportation Needs, Funding and Gaps ......................... 49 

Maps 

Pacific West Region Map ............................................................................................................ v 

Figures 

Figure 1. PRP Authorization Amounts ....................................................................................... 2 

Figure 2. Pavement Condition .................................................................................................... 6 

Figure 3. Distribution and Condition of PWR Bridges and Tunnels ......................................... 8 

Figure 4. Current FLTP Funding by Category (2015) ................................................................ 14 

Figure 5. Age of Structures ....................................................................................................... 18 

Figure 6. Health Index of PWR Bridges ................................................................................... 19 

Figure 7. Cost to Attain Health Index for NPS Road Class 1 & 2 of PWR Bridges .................. 20 

Figure 8. Cost to Attain Health Index for NPS Road Class 3, 4 & 5 of PWR Bridges ............. 21 

Figure 9. Severe Crashes (Injury and Fatality), 1990 to 2005 .................................................. 24 

Figure 10. Expenditures by Work Type .................................................................................... 36 

Figure 11. PWR Total Funding Obligations, 2006 to 2012 ...................................................... 37 

Figure 12. 3R Roadway Rehabilitation Needs with and without Pavement Preservation .... 46 

Figure 13. Annualized Transit System Capital and Operations Needs ................................... 47 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page iii 

Executive Summary

This plan identifies existing and future transportation needs for national parks in the 

Pacific West Region (PWR) through the year 2035. Significant gaps are expected between 

projected funding and estimated needs, in particular for preventive maintenance and 

operations, rehabilitation of roadways and parking areas, and recapitalization of transit 

vehicles. Insufficient past funding has left transportation infrastructure in need of 

extensive repairs and major investments just to maintain existing facilities and levels of 

service. Very few major capital investments or new construction projects have been built 

in recent years to either add new roadway capacity or provide for new transit service 

connections, despite increasing congestion problems at a number of park sites. Ninetynine percent of the cost for work identified in PWR’s current transportation project 

priority lists is for maintenance, repair or recapitalization of existing roadway, parking and 

transit assets, as opposed to new construction or new service. 

By 2035 the total gap between projected annual funding ($132 million) and estimated 

annual needs ($194 million) for the Pacific West Region will be $62 million. 

Implementation of the Capital Investment Strategy (CIS) will help to lengthen the service 

life for transportation assets that are identified as high priority, and keep annual 

maintenance requirements in balance by matching the core asset portfolio to the amount 

of operational funds available. Roadway rehabilitation is the largest element of the 

transportation program that is projected to be underfunded. However, there are other 

important future needs that won’t be fully met, which include 

 efforts to proactively address climate change impacts to facilities;

 implementing environmentally beneficial facility improvements such as providing

for better fish passage and reducing wildlife-vehicle collisions;

 providing maintenance for future, as yet un-built capital projects;

 providing for transit recapitalization;

 adopting evolving communication technologies to relieve transportation

congestion problems;

 providing for accessibility to comply with the Architectural Barriers Act standards;

 rehabilitating aging and dilapidated roadway features on historic roads and

bridges; and

 removal of facilities that are decommissioned either due to lack of funding for

operation and regular maintenance, or susceptibility to frequent, recurring damage

from floods, landslides or rising seawaters.

This document offers a fiscally constrained plan aimed at maintaining safe and enjoyable 

visitor access to essential experiences in PWR parks. The investment strategy focuses on 

high priority assets for rehabilitation and preservation, and is aligned with the CIS for 

reinvesting in assets that superintendents have committed adequate operational and 

annual maintenance dollars. The current gap between funding and identified need will 

grow mainly as a result of steady increases in deferred maintenance, as calculated if there 

is no increase in PWR’s purchasing capacity for rehabilitation and regular maintenance. 

Even with full investment in bridge and pavement preservation programs, roadway 

conditions will continue to decline as inevitable aging and deterioration outpaces the 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page iv 

financial capacity to rehabilitate all the facilities for which there is a need. Costs for transit 

operations and recapitalization of vehicles may also pose a challenge for managers at 

some parks. 

Maintaining access and providing for visitor enjoyment under these conditions will depend 

on several key strategies: 

 Priority will remain on functional class one and two roadways. 

 Recapitalization will be focused on assets in CIS optimizer bands one and two. 

 Prioritization for funding will go to projects that serve visitor areas and activities 

that are closely linked to the park’s purpose and can’t be substituted at another 

location within the park. 

 Capital investments/new construction will be very limited in order to conserve 

funds for repairs to existing facilities. 

 Roads, parking areas and transit systems may need to be removed or downsized in 

order to bring inventory in line with budgets. 

 With regard to global climate change, careful consideration, including life-cycle 

cost analysis, must be made before major reinvestment in transportation facilities. 

This is especially applicable to those facilities that are vulnerable to increasingly 

severe or frequent storm damage or sea-level rise. 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page v 

 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page vi 

Table 1: List of the Pacific West Region Parks 

Park 

Alpha Park Name State/Territory

ALKA Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail HI 

AMME American Memorial National Park NMI 

BIHO Big Hole National Battlefield WY 

CABR Cabrillo National Monument CA 

CECH Cesar E. Chavez National Monument CA 

CHIS Channel Islands National Park CA 

CIRO City of Rocks National Reserve ID 

CRLA Crater Lake National Park OR 

CRMO Craters of the Moon National Monument & Preserve ID 

DEPO Devils Postpile National Monument CA 

DEVA Death Valley National Park CA 

EBLA Ebey's Landing National Historical Reserve WA 

EUON Eugene O'Neill National Historic Site CA 

FOPO Fort Point National Historic Site CA 

FOVA Fort Vancouver National Historic Site WA 

GOGA Golden Gate National Recreation Area CA 

GRBA Great Basin National Park NV 

HAFO Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument ID 

HALE Haleakala National Park HI 

HAVO Hawaii Volcanoes National Park HI 

JODA John Day Fossil Beds National Monument OR 

JOMU John Muir National Historic Site CA 

JOTR Joshua Tree National Park CA 

JUBA Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail CA 

KAHO Kaloko-Honokohau National Historic Park HI 

KALA Kalaupapa National Historic Park HI 

KLSE Klondike Gold Rush National Historic Park – Seattle 

Unit WA 

LABE Lava Beds National Monument CA 

LAME Lake Mead National Recreation Area NV 

LARO Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area WA 

LAVO Lassen Volcanic National Park CA 

LEWI Lewis and Clark National Historic Park WA 

MANZ Manzanar National Historic Site CA 

MIIN Minidoka Internment National Monument ID 

MOJA Mojave National Reserve CA 

MORA Mount Rainier National Park WA 

MUWO Muir Woods National Monument CA 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page vii 

Park 

Alpha Park Name State/Territory

NEPE Nez Perce National Historic Park ID 

NOCA North Cascades National Parks Complex WA 

NPSA National Park of American Samoa AS 

OLYM Olympic National Park WA 

ORCA Oregon Caves National Monument OR 

PARA Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument AZ 

PINN Pinnacles National Monument CA 

PORE Point Reyes National Seashore CA 

PRSF Presidio of San Francisco CA 

PUHE Pu'ukohola Heiau National Historic Site HI 

PUHO P'uohonua O Honaunau National Historic Park HI 

REDW Redwood National & State Parks CA 

RORI Rosie the Riveter National Historic Park CA 

SAFR San Francisco Maritime National Historic Park CA 

SAJH San Juan Island National Historic Site WA 

SAMO Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area CA 

SEKI Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks CA 

TUSK Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument NV 

VALR World War II Valor in the Pacific National Monument HI 

WAPA War in the Pacific National Historic Park GU 

WHIS Whiskeytown National Recreation Area CA 

WHMI Whitman Mission National Historic Site WA 

YOSE Yosemite National Park CA 

 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page viii 
Final PWR LRTP – April 2015 Page 1 

Pacific West Region 

Long Range Transportation Plan 

Introduction and Background 

Federal legislation requires all federal land management agencies to conduct long range 

transportation planning in a manner consistent with current statewide and metropolitanscale transportation planning (23 U.S. Code § 201(c)). This Long Range Transportation Plan 

(LRTP) is intended to provide an overall strategy for the next 20 years of transportation 

investment in the Pacific West Region of the National Park Service. The plan describes how 

the transportation program can best help to improve the visitors’ park experience, protect 

our treasured resources, and provide sustainable access to a more diverse and growing 

populace. 

The Pacific West Region (PWR) extends across 106 degrees of longitude, encompassing a 

network of 61 national parks from eastern Nevada to Guam and Saipan on the other side 

of the International Date Line. There are more than 1,400 miles of paved roadways, 2,000 

miles of unpaved roads, and 24 alternative transportation systems. This plan has been 

prepared to establish clear objectives for the future management of these transportation 

assets, with the primary goal of sustaining or improving visitor access without harming 

park resources, or placing an undue financial burden on either park operating budgets or 

facility repair and improvement programs. As has been the case for the past several 

decades, parks in PWR are generally managing transportation assets within the existing 

“footprint”, forgoing new facility projects in favor of maintaining and reinvesting in 

existing facilities. This is being done both out of financial necessity and the desire to 

minimize impacts to resources. 

Funding History

The primary source of funds for NPS transportation has come through programs 

established by the various federal highway funding authorizations that have been passed 

by Congress since 1982, codified under Title 23 of the U.S. Code. Before that time, funds 

for park roads came from a variety of authorizations which collectively funded the 

creation of the basic network of roads which exists today. From 1982 to 2012, the 

program was called the Park Roads and Parkway Program (PRP). The current highway 

funding legislation eliminated the term and uses the more generic Federal Lands 

Transportation Program, or FLTP. 

Servicewide program funding levels have varied over the years, but after a fairly rapid 

expansion in the years leading up to WWII, have remained relatively flat in real dollars to 

the present day. (See figure 1 PRP Authorization Amounts for annual servicewide

authorization amounts for NPS roads and transportation since 1924). There were, 

however, only 152 park units in 1945 compared to 408 units today. Funding levels for the 

program have grown steadily from $60 million annually in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, 

to the current level of $240 million annually, where the program funding has remained 

since 2009. The increase in authorization amounts has been offset by inflation, the 

substantial increase in the size of the National Park System and by the corresponding 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 2 

amount of roadway and other transportation infrastructure under NPS management. 

Figure 1

The earliest years of the park road program concentrated on new road construction and 

improvements to primitive roads to accommodate automobiles. As the park system 

expanded and existing roads began to age, the need to maintain and rehabilitate existing 

roads grew, placing a strain on budgets. The authorization of the Park Roads and 

Parkways Program in 1982 brought regular funding for park transportation needs, but the 

program lacked centralized structure and direction. Most of the funding was directed 

toward 4R-type widening and reconstruction projects, with little going towards more 

basic, but necessary, 3R-type rehabilitation of aging pavements, bridges and drainage 

structures (see Glossary for definitions of 3R and 4R). It was not until 2001 that 3R/4R 

funding categories were established on a servicewide basis, allowing for budgeting of 

minimum levels of investment in badly needed 3R-type projects. Current NPS policy 

requires that no more than 20% of a Region’s program be allocated to 4R-type projects, 

leaving the majority of program funds for rehabilitation and preservation treatments. NPS 

continues to make progress in maximizing benefits from authorized funding, through the 

implementation of sound asset management practices and application of quantitative 

methods in project prioritization. 

Despite transportation program funding increases from 2005 to 2009, overall roadway 

conditions in PWR parks have continued a slow but steady decline. Alternative 

transportation systems, most of which use these same roadways, have also been 

underfunded and often rely on special grants from the Federal Transit Administration, 

parks’ Recreation Fee or base funding programs to remain in operation. Of the $240 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 3 

million authorized to NPS for transportation each year, NPS receives about $215 million 

net (2013 dollars) after Congressional lop-offs and takedowns. A regional allocation 

formula, based on factors such as average roadway condition, miles of road and amount of 

bridge area, determines the allocation of approximately $51 million annually to PWR. 

Approximately $48 million of these funds are spent on Category I Road Rehabilitation and 

Reconstruction and $3 million is spent on Category III Alternative Transportation. PWR has 

no Category II Parkways. 

With the passage of MAP-21 in 2012 came the elimination of several discretionary 

programs, such as Public Lands Highway Discretionary that have been a perennial source of 

funds for NPS transportation projects, averaging about $3 million annually for PWR. MAP21 also eliminated the Transportation in Parks Program (TRIP), the Federal Transit 

Administration program that provided approximately $3 million annually for PWR 

alternative transportation projects. The Federal Lands Access Program is a new funding 

program but was created expressly for transportation assets owned by state and local 

governments and will not directly affect the condition or service capabilities of NPS-owned 

assets. The overall effect of the legislative changes has been a reduction of $6 million 

annually for transportation projects in PWR. 

Planning Context: Other NPS Long Range Transportation Planning Efforts 

In addition to this and other Regional LRTP’s, the National Park Service has recently 

developed a National Long Range Transportation Plan (2015) that contains large scale 

trends, servicewide baseline data, management objectives and program performance 

measures. Likewise, a small number of units within the NPS system have embarked on 

unit-level transportation plans, such as Golden Gate NRA (GOGA) in the Pacific West 

Region. The GOGA LRTP (2015) assesses current and future transportation challenges, 

prioritizes investments to address these challenges, and includes implementation and 

monitoring plans to guide future specific actions and decision making. Long Range 

Transportation Plans are not anticipated to be needed for every park; the regional plan 

will provide a sufficient planning framework for guiding transportation infrastructure 

management and investment for most park units. 

This plan builds upon the National LRTP by providing additional details specific to the 

Pacific West Region. It outlines the PWR’s: 

 Transportation asset portfolio and conditions 

 Historical and future transportation program funding levels 

 Overall challenges and specific needs 

 Resource and fiscal context for determining project priorities 

 Key findings and strategies for maintaining access through 2035 

This plan is not intended to present a case for funding needs unique to the Pacific West 

Region. Transportation and other facility maintenance programs within the National Park 

Service are funded at the national level, and it is the National LRTP that most 

appropriately describes the overall financial need. This plan identifies funding gaps PWR 

faces, and recommends strategies for maximizing visitor benefit and resource protection 

with limited funds. 

Transportation planning is specifically exempted from the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 under 23 U.S.C. 134(q) and 23 U.S.C. 135 (k). 23 U.S.C. 134(q) reads as follows 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 4 

(23 U.S.C. 135 (k) similar): 

“Continuation of Current Review Practice. - Since plans and TIPs described in this section are subject to a 

reasonable opportunity for public comment, since individual projects included in plans and TIPs are 

subject to review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and since 

decisions by the Secretary concerning plans and TIPs described in this section have not been reviewed 

under that Act as of January 1, 1997, any decision by the Secretary concerning a plan or TIP described in 

this section shall not be considered to be a Federal action subject to review under that Act.” 

However, the public will have ample opportunities to provide input on specific proposed 

projects through the process used to evaluate and assess projects under NEPA. All projects 

that include federal funding, such as FLTP projects, must comply with the NEPA process. 

The NEPA process requires public outreach at several stages: project scoping (to present 

the proposed project and identify potential issues), public review of the draft 

environmental document (environmental assessment or environmental impact statement), 

and public review of the final environmental impact statement. Additional public 

involvement opportunities are often provided, such as public meetings at various stages of 

project development. 

Transportation Goals and Objectives 

The Pacific West Region’s primary transportation goal is to provide sustainable, safe and 

enjoyable access to the key visitor destinations within the parks. These experiences are 

defined in park enabling legislation, foundation statements and general management 

plans. Sustainable access means transportation facilities and services are maintained 

within available budgets, and that park scenery, natural resources and historic properties 

are not harmed or diminished. 

Objective #1: Manage transportation assets to keep primary park roads 

and transportation systems in good condition. To make transportation 

systems viable into the future, they must be financially sustainable. The total cost 

of facility ownership must be carefully considered when making any capital 

investment or re-investment decisions. In some instances, this may mean focusing 

investment on the critical transportation network and eliminating some facilities, in 

order to make it possible to properly maintain the facilities that provide access to 

the visitor destinations that are fundamental to the park purpose. 

Objective #2: Provide multiple modes of access so that connections within 

parks and to surrounding communities are facilitated. These modes include 

transit (typically shuttle bus or ferry), bicycle paths, and pedestrian links. Some key 

park destinations within PWR do not have road access, such as the USS Arizona

Memorial and the Channel Islands, and must be accessed by ferry boat. Other parks 

within urbanized areas such as Golden Gate NRA are served by an existing network 

of transit systems. Visitors to these parks can benefit if services are better 

coordinated with park arrival points or transportation links. 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 5 

The Pacific West Region Transportation Portfolio 

The Pacific West Region maintains approximately 1,475 miles of paved roadway and 24.7 

million square feet of paved parking (over 70,000 spaces, or the equivalent of 212 miles of 

two-lane road), with a replacement value of over $5.2 billion. Roadways range from 

heavily used, well-known park roads like the Generals Highway in Sequoia National Park 

and the Valley Loop Road in Yosemite National Park, to small campground loops and park 

administrative roads. The region’s approximately 56 million annual visitors enjoy a wide 

variety of park experiences and programs, but must contend with transportation facilities 

that overall are in only fair condition. The costs of maintaining the PWR transportation 

portfolio at its current size have left the region with a growing backlog of deferred 

maintenance on its transportation assets, currently estimated at more than $1.5 billion. 

However, the number and extent of assets is growing and may be expected to continue to 

do so. In 2014, NPS assumed full ownership of 163 miles of paved road at Mojave National 

Preserve, from rights-of-way previously claimed by the County of San Bernardino. Similar 

transfers have the potential to occur at other parks on state and local rights-of-way within 

park boundaries such as at SR 146 in Pinnacles NP, John F. Kennedy Memorial Drive at 

Whiskeytown NRA and Sir Francis Drake Boulevard in Point Reyes NS. Like NPS, local 

jurisdictions are struggling to maintain their own roadway networks due to lack of 

adequate funding, and increasingly see the benefit of reducing their inventory. NPS may 

not be able to refuse transfer of a road that is unilaterally abandoned. Within its own 

inventory, NPS will need to determine which roads, parking areas and transit systems can 

be removed or downsized in order to bring its inventory in line with its budget. 

Roadways 

NPS currently assesses the condition of its paved roadways through the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) Road Inventory Program, which uses automated and manual 

techniques to measure pavement distress. (Other roadway features such as curbs, culverts, 

signage, and guardrails, are not assessed as part of this effort. However the deferred 

maintenance needs for these features are included in the overall calculations and are 

based on analysis of prior roadway rehabilitation contracts over the past two decades. The 

subtotal for deferred maintenance on features other than pavements amounts to about 

35% of the total figure.) The current average condition of pavement on PWR’s roadways 

is 75 on a 100-point scale, or fair within the four rating levels of poor/fair/good/excellent. 

This rating is based on analysis of pavement condition measurements, such as cracking, 

rutting, and pothole frequency and is generally used as a measurement of overall roadway 

condition in addition to other features such as guard walls, storm drainage features, 

signage and other appurtenances. Nineteen percent of PWR’s paved road miles are rated 

in poor condition and 12% are rated in excellent condition. 

 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 6 

Figure 2: Pavement Condition

Source: 2011 Pavement Condition Report, Highway Pavement Management Application Report 2013-NPS-01, 

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division. Note: parking area quantities are indicated in equivalent route miles, 

for a typical 22’-wide road, or One Route Mile = 22’ x 5,280 LF/Mile = 116,160 SF.

Pavement condition assessments are done approximately every three years as part of the 

Road Inventory Program, administered jointly by the NPS and the Federal Highway 

Administration. 

Functional Classifications of Park Roads 

The routes which make up a park road system are grouped into the following categories: 

Class 1 Principal Park Road/Rural Parkway (Public Roads) - Roads which constitute 

the main access route, circulatory tour, or thoroughfare for park visitors. 

Route Numbers 1 - 99. Rural parkways (e.g. Natchez Trace) are numbered 1 - 

9. State Routes Inventoried for Park. Route Numbers 5000-5999. 

Class 2 Connector Park Road (Public Roads) - Roads which provide access within a 

park to areas of scenic, scientific, recreational or cultural interest, such as 

overlooks, campgrounds, etc. Route Numbers 100-199. 

Class 3 Special Purpose Park Road (Public Roads) - Roads which provide circulation 

within public areas, such as campgrounds, picnic areas, visitor center 

complexes, concessionaire facilities, etc. These roads generally serve lowspeed traffic and are often designed for one-way circulation. Route Numbers 

200-299. 

Class 4 Primitive Park Roads (Public Roads) - Roads which provide circulation 

through remote areas and/or access to primitive campgrounds and 

undeveloped areas. These roads frequently have no minimum design 

standards and their use may be limited to specially equipped vehicles. Route 

Numbers 200-299. Functional Classes 3 and 4 have the same route numbers 

because, historically, they were numbered similarly. 

Class 5 Administrative Access Road (Administrative Roads) - All public roads 

intended for access to administrative developments or structures such as 

park offices, employee quarters, or utility areas. Route Numbers 400-499. 

Poor

285 Miles

19%

Fair

581 Miles

40%

Good

430 Miles

29%

Excellent

181  Miles

12%

Pavement Condition, All Routes

Poor

34 Miles

18%

Fair

103 Miles

53%

Good

28 Miles

14%

Excellent

29 Miles

15%

Pavement Condition, Public Parking Areas
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 7 

Class 6 Restricted Road (Administrative Roads) - All roads normally closed to the 

public, including patrol roads, truck trails, and other similar roads. Route 

Numbers 400-499. Note: Functional Classes 5 and 6 have the same route 

numbers because historically they were numbered similarly and often there 

is little distinction between these routes. For example, because utility areas 

and employee housing are often closed to the public, this restriction would 

result in classification of FC 6 rather than FC 5. 

Class 7 Urban Parkway (Urban Parkways and City Streets) - These facilities serve high 

volumes of park and non-park related traffic and are restricted, limitedaccess facilities in an urban area. This category of roads primarily 

encompasses the major parkways which serve as gateways to our nation's 

capital. Other major park roads or portions thereof, however, may be 

included in this category. Route Numbers 1-9. 

Class 8 City Streets (Urban Parkways and City Streets) - City streets are usually 

extensions of the adjoining street system that are owned and maintained by 

the National Park Service. The construction and/or reconstruction should 

conform to accepted local engineering practice and local conditions. Route 

Numbers 600-699.

Parking 

Most visitors typically arrive by private automobile (and a lesser number by tour or charter 

bus) and then proceed on foot to park destinations. Parking capacity and the condition of 

parking lots are problematic in parks of all sizes, especially in the most heavily visited 

areas. The condition of paved parking areas is worse than roadways, a consequence of 

investment decisions aimed at preserving safe and enjoyable access along the busiest park 

roadways. Seventy-one percent of PWR’s parking areas are in either poor or fair condition. 

Deteriorated pavement in parking areas contributes to trip/fall accidents (and resultant 

tort claims and payments), poses accessibility challenges to visitors with mobility 

impairments, and adds strain on annual maintenance budgets with increased needs for 

pothole repair, clearing of drainage structures, and sweeping of storm runoff sediment. 

Parking areas are also among the most congested and accident-prone facilities in the 

region’s portfolio. 

Bridges and Tunnels 

The Federal Highway Administration Bridge Inspection Program (BIP) inspects all NPS 

vehicle bridges and tunnels every two years, as required by law. The current BIP estimate 

of deferred maintenance needs for PWR bridges and tunnels totals $38 million, but does 

not include cost adjustments for constructability complications or traffic control, which 

historically have added approximately 85% more cost; a more realistic estimate of the total 

deferred maintenance need is closer to $70 million. BIP assigns a “priority of 

improvement” rating to each structure, with the worst structures receiving a rating of “A” 

(Critical – structure in danger of collapse) to “D” (Minor – generally in good condition). 

The majority of cost associated with bridge needs in PWR consist of bridges with the rating 

“C” (Moderate – structure requires substantial repairs to prevent a serious deficiency or 

unsafe condition). One structure at Yosemite NP is rated A/Critical, and is closed. Three 

more bridges at Olympic NP, Point Reyes NS, and Yosemite NP and one tunnel at Golden 

Gate NRA are rated as priority “B” (Major – structure is seriously deficient or presents a 

safety hazard). The Golden Gate tunnel and the Olympic bridge are closed, and the other 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 8 

bridges have weight restrictions in effect, as recommended by FHWA. 

Figure 3: Distribution and Condition of PWR Bridges and Tunnels

Source: 2014 PWR Bridge Condition Analysis, Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 

Alternative Transportation Systems

This category includes any vehicular means of transportation other than private vehicles 

that provides visitors access. There are currently 24 alternative transportation systems 

throughout 13 park units in the Pacific West Region (see table 3 below). NPS owns and 

operates two of these systems (at Eugene O’Neill NHS and Pinnacles NP); another four 

systems are owned by NPS, but are operated under concession or transit service contracts 

(one at North Cascades NP and three at Yosemite NP). Six of these systems provide the 

only means of access to the park, or to a key visitor use area within the park such as the 

Alcatraz Island ferry. Of the remaining systems, ten provide shuttle bus service to areas 

where there is inadequate parking availability for private vehicles. A breakdown of PWR 

systems by primary purpose is shown below: 

Table 2: Alternative Transportation Systems-Primary Purpose 

Source: 2012 Draft NPS Transit Inventory, Volpe Center

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

CRLA

GOGA

GRBA

HALE

LAKE

LAVO

LEWI

MORA

NEPE

NOCA

OLYM

PINN

PORE

REDW

SAMO

SEKI

WHIS

WHMI

YOSE

No. of Structures

GOOD

FAIR

POOR

Vehicle Type

Number of Annual

Boardings (2012)

Number of

Systems

Only Mode

of Access

Parking

Congestion

Relief Tour

Hiker

Shuttle

Gateway

Community

Connections

Visitor

Convenience

Shuttle/Bus/Van/Tram 5,490,522 19 2 9 2 2 2 2

Boat/Ferry 4,592,719 4 3 1

Airplane 3,364 1 1

Total: 10,086,605 24 6 9 3 2 2 2

Primary Purpose
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 9 

Operating costs comprise about two thirds of the total cost of these systems. Parks are 

limited in how much they can charge users, and rarely collect enough revenue to cover 

costs. This is consistent with most public transit systems throughout the U.S.; fare receipts 

alone are insufficient to completely fund operating costs. Current NPS policy limits on 

entrance fees make it difficult or impossible to levy additional transportation fees to cover 

shortfalls. Even without such limits, many users would likely refuse to pay fees high 

enough to cover the true cost of some of these systems, and would opt not to complete 

their visit. In response, parks often use Operation of the National Park Service (ONPS) 

funds and Recreation Fee funds to cover costs, leaving less funds from these sources for 

other pressing needs. NPS is currently working with the Department of Transportation 

and the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center to identify additional funding 

opportunities for NPS transit systems. 

Recapitalization of systems, i.e. the purchase of replacement buses, is often not within the 

normal budgets of parks, large or small, and they must look to special programs for funds. 

Some of these costs have been funded by the FLTP Category III/Alternative Transportation 

Program, and through special grant programs such as Transit in Parks Program (TRIP). (See 

Appendix 2 for details on the history of TRIP grant awards in PWR.) Since MAP-21 

eliminated TRIP, however, no equivalent program has been authorized to replace it. NPS 

has had some recent limited success with obtaining grants through the Congestion 

Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program, which is managed by the 

Federal-aid Office of the Federal Highway Administration and distributed through State 

Departments of Transportation to local Metropolitan Planning Organizations. Over the 

course of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for

Users (SAFETEA-LU), and its extensions from 2005 to 2012, PWR received an average of $3 

million annually through TRIP. NPS policy that does not allow Recreation Fee funds to be 

“banked” from one year to the next limits parks’ ability to make large recapitalization 

purchases. The 24 systems are described below. 

Table 3: PWR Alternative Transportation Systems

Park 

System 

Name System Description 

# 

Unlinked 

Trips* Vehicle 

Type Owner Operator 

Agreement 

Type 

CHIS 

Channel 

Islands 

Aviation 

Public air 

transportation is 

available year-round 

to Santa Rosa Island 

only. Flights depart 

from Camarillo. 

3,364 

Fixed-wing 

aircraft 

NonNPS Non-NPS Concessions 

Contract 

CHIS 

Island 

Packers 

Boat travel from 

Ventura and Channel 

Islands Harbors to all 

of the islands. 50,645 Boat/Ferry 

NonNPS Non-NPS Concessions 

Contract 

CRLA 

Crater 

Lake Boat 

Tour 

Ranger guided boat 

tours offered on 

Crater Lake. 20,580 Boat/Ferry 

NonNPS Non-NPS Concessions 

Contract 

CRLA 

Rim Drive 

Trolley 

Tour 

Ranger guided trolley 

tours circle Crater 

Lake along Crater 8,023 

Shuttle/Bus

/Van/Tram 

NonNPS Non-NPS Concessions 

Contract 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 10 

Park 

System 

Name System Description 

# 

Unlinked 

Trips* Vehicle 

Type Owner Operator 

Agreement 

Type 

Rim Drive. 

DEPO 

Reds 

Meadow 

Shuttle 

Bus 

From late June to 

early September dayuse visitors to the 

Devils Postpile/Reds 

Meadow area must 

ride the shuttle bus. 

Managed in 

cooperation with the 

U.S. Forest 

Service/Operated by 

Eastern Sierra Transit. 

Visitors pay fare to 

ride shuttle (NPS does 

not collect fares 

here). 60,000 

Shuttle/Bus

/Van/Tram 

NonNPS Non-NPS Cooperative 

Agreement 

EUON 

NPS 

Shuttle 

Shuttle runs 5 days a 

week and must be 

taken to access the 

historic site (from 

Danville). 

Reservations 

required. Access by 

private vehicle is not 

available to EUON. 

Vehicle is shared with 

POCH/RORI/JOMU. 2,542 

Shuttle/Bus

/Van/Tram NPS NPS 

NPS Owned 

& Operated 

GOGA PresidiGo 

The Presidio Trust in 

partnership with 

Golden Gate NRA 

offers a shuttle (clean 

fuel buses) within the 

Presidio 7 days a 

week, and from 

downtown on 

weekdays. 

 Not 

Available 

Shuttle/Bus

/Van/Tram 

NonNPS Non-NPS Cooperative 

Agreement 

GOGA 

Alcatraz 

Cruises 

ferry 

For fee ferry cruise 

offers transportation 

to Alcatraz Island. 

Electric tram is also 

provided from ferry 

dock to prison for 

persons with mobility 

disabilities. 3,061,494 Boat/Ferry 

NonNPS Non-NPS Concessions 

Contract 

MORA 

Paradise 

Shuttle 

Shuttle runs from late 

June to midSeptember along the 

Nisqually corridor. 

[Not currently in 

operation due to lack 

of funding] 39,834 

Shuttle/Bus

/Van/Tram 

NonNPS Non-NPS Service 

Contract 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 11 

Park 

System 

Name System Description 

# 

Unlinked 

Trips* Vehicle 

Type Owner Operator 

Agreement 

Type 

MUWO 

Muir 

Woods 

Shuttle 

Muir Woods Shuttle 

from Highway 101 is 

funded by Marin 

Transit & NPS 

 Not 

Available 

Shuttle/Bus

/Van/Tram 

NonNPS Non-NPS Cooperative 

Agreement 

NOCA 

Stehekin 

Shuttle 

For fee shuttle 

offered at Stehekin 

almost year-round, 

originating at the 

Landing and traveling 

9 miles up the valley 

road into North 

Cascades NP. Only 

means of access to 

Stehekin is by 

passenger ferry boat 

or hiking trail. 16,304 

Shuttle/Bus

/Van/Tram NPS Non-NPS 

Concessions 

Contract 

NOCA 

Ross Lake 

Hiker 

Shuttle 

Ross Lake Resort 

Concession operates a 

small boat to 

transport visitors for 

a fee along lakeshore 

to and from hiking 

trails. 300 

Shuttle/Bus

/Van/Tram 

NonNPS Non-NPS Concessions 

Contract 

PINN 

Pinnacle 

Shuttle 

A free visitor shuttle 

service for the east 

district is available on 

weekends during the 

peak season. 19,992 

Shuttle/Bus

/Van/Tram NPS NPS 

NPS Owned 

& Operated 

PORE 

Headlands 

Winter 

Shuttle 

Bus service to the 

Lighthouse and 

Chimney Rock for 

whale-watching on 

weekends and 

holidays. Service is 

provided throughout 

the winter from 

Drakes Beach (road 

closed to private 

vehicles). 26,946 

Shuttle/Bus

/Van/Tram 

NonNPS Non-NPS Service 

Contract 

SEKI 

Gateway 

Shuttle 

Shuttle service links 

the City of Visalia, the 

Ash Mountain park 

entrance, gateway 

communities and the 

Giant Forest Museum 

within the park. 9,528 

Shuttle/Bus

/Van/Tram 

NonNPS Non-NPS Cooperative 

Agreement 

SEKI 

Giant 

Forest 

Shuttle 

Four routes serve 

major destinations in 

the Giant Forest area 

of the park. 1,439,534 

Shuttle/Bus

/Van/Tram 

NonNPS Non-NPS Cooperative 

Agreement 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 12 

Park 

System 

Name System Description 

# 

Unlinked 

Trips* Vehicle 

Type Owner Operator 

Agreement 

Type 

VALR 

Ford 

Island 

Tour 

Shuttle bus service is 

available between 

USS Arizona Visitor 

Center and Ford 

Island sites, which 

include the USS 

Oklahoma Memorial 

and USS Missouri 

Memorial. 

 Not 

Available 

Shuttle/Bus

/Van/Tram 

NonNPS Non-NPS Service 

Contract 

VALR 

USS 

Arizona 

Memorial 

Tour 

The Navy operates a 

five boat tour "fleet" 

between the Pearl 

Harbor Visitor Center 

Halawa Stream Dock 

and the USS Arizona 

Memorial in 

conjunction with NPS. 

Tickets are available 

by on-line reservation 

for a small 

convenience fee or 

are available for free 

on a first-come, firstserved basis for 

scheduled tours to 

the memorial. 1,460,000 Boat/Ferry 

NonNPS Non-NPS Cooperative 

Agreement 

YOSE 

Badger 

Pass 

Winter 

Shuttle 

For fee Badger Pass 

Winter Shuttle 

transports visitors 

from Yosemite Valley 

to the Badger Pass Ski 

Area within Yosemite 

where Nordic and 

Alpine skiing and 

show-shoeing is 

available. 8,404 

Shuttle/Bus

/Van/Tram 

NonNPS Non-NPS Concessions 

Contract 

YOSE 

Mariposa 

Grove 

Shuttle 

Shuttle transports 

visitors from South 

Entrance and 

Wawona to Mariposa 

Grove during the 

summer season only. 

Funded by Recreation 

Fee or Transportation 

Fees starting in 2017. 

No shuttle service is 

scheduled in 2015 or 

2016 due to 

construction activity)\. 372,438 

Shuttle/Bus

/Van/Tram NPS Non-NPS 

Service 

Contract 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 13 

Park 

System 

Name System Description 

# 

Unlinked 

Trips* Vehicle 

Type Owner Operator 

Agreement 

Type 

YOSE 

Visitor 

Tours and 

Hiker 

Shuttle 

For fee 

transportation and 

tour services - 

Yosemite Valley Tram 

Tour (by open-air 

trams); Glacier Point 

Tour (by motor 

coach), Grand Tour to 

Glacier Point, 

Wawona and 

Mariposa Grove (by 

motor coach); and 

Hiker's Shuttle for 

hikers accessing the 

high country 

including Tuolumne 

Meadows (by motor 

coach). 125,980 

Shuttle/Bus

/Van/Tram 

NonNPS Non-NPS Concessions 

Contract 

YOSE 

Tuolumne 

Shuttle 

Seasonal summer 

shuttle servicing the 

Tioga Road corridor 

between Tuolumne 

Meadows and 

Olmstead Point to the 

west and Tioga Pass 

to the east. Funded 

by Recreation and 

Transportation Fees. 29,092 

Shuttle/Bus

/Van/Tram NPS Non-NPS 

Service 

Contract 

YOSE YARTS 

Regularly scheduled 

transit service 

between gateway 

communities and 

Yosemite Valley (by 

motor coach). Year 

round service on Hwy 

140 with expanded 

service during the 

peak summer season. 100,290 

Shuttle/Bus

/Van/Tram 

NonNPS Non-NPS Cooperative 

Agreement 

YOSE 

Yosemite 

Valley 

Shuttle 

Year-round shuttle 

service in Yosemite 

Valley. Funded by 

Concession Add-On 

Fees. 3,175,039 

Shuttle/Bus

/Van/Tram NPS Non-NPS 

Concessions 

Contract 

*Unlinked trips equal the total number of passengers who board public transit vehicles. A passenger is 

counted each time he/she boards a revenue vehicle even though the boarding may be the result of a transfer 

from another route to complete the same one-way journey. Where linked or unlinked is not designated, 

unlinked is assumed. 

Total cost of facility ownership (TCFO) is not well understood for many of these systems. 

Future financial planning efforts are needed to accurately program funding, for both 

operating and recapitalization expenditures. The Facility Planning Program, in concert 

with the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, is currently conducting a multiphased analysis of NPS-funded Alternative Transportation Systems (ATS) across the Service. 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 14 

Funds for future system expenditures will likely come from multiple programs, meaning 

park managers will need to incorporate these systems in their own park asset management 

plans, as well as coordinate needs with the regional facility program managers. 

The PWR Transportation Program 

The majority of the regionally managed transportation program work is funded through 

the FLTP, and the majority of PWR’s transportation spending goes towards rehabilitation 

or reconstruction of roads and bridges. Most of the engineering and contract 

administration for road projects is performed by the Central and Western Federal Lands 

Highway Divisions within FHWA. According to NPS policy, no more than 20% of Category I 

FLTP funds can be spent on reconstruction/realignment work (also known as “4R” work) so 

that the majority of funding can be used for repair or preventive maintenance for existing 

transportation facilities (also known as “3R” work). The breakdown of FLTP funding in 

gross dollars including planning, design and construction management is shown below. 

Figure 4 

Source: PWR FLTP multiyear programs, 2014 

Notes: The Regular Cyclic Maintenance program contributes $6 million annually towards 

pavement preservation contracts (managed by FHWA) and another $1.5 million annually 

towards restriping, sign replacements, roadside ditch reconditioning, and replenishing 

aggregate on unpaved roads. Bridge preservation funding levels have averaged 

Category I/3R

$30,187,500

57%

Category I/4R

$8,943,750

17%

Category III

Alternative

Transportation

$3,311,700

6%

Pavement

Preservation

$4,560,000

9%

Bridge Preservation

$3,705,000

7%

Safety Management

$1,695,000

3%

Congestion

Management

$565,000

1%

Current FLTP Funding by Category

(2015)
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 15 

approximately $2 million annually, but the higher amount indicated above reflects 2014 

recommendations from FHWA Federal Lands Highway Bridge Division. 

Project Evaluation and Program Prioritization 

In 2012 PWR updated the Pacific West Region Directive (PW-036) Federal Lands Highway 

Program (FLHP) Park Roads and Parkways (PRP) Project Prioritization. Both FLHP and PRP 

have since been discontinued and replaced by the FLTP. This directive still effectively 

applies and outlines the processes for developing and rating Category I transportation 

projects. Category I funding is provided through the FLTP, and relies on the Federal 

Highway Administration’s engineering expertise to support the NPS in the construction, 

reconstruction, and rehabilitation of the PRP system. The 2012 Directive, along with the 

Park Roads and Parkways Program Handbook, Guidelines for Program Implementation, 

January 2008, provides park managers with revised guidelines and procedures for 

submitting their park’s Category I project priorities under FLTP. The 2012 Directive also 

specifies rating criteria for project prioritization; the Category I criteria are as follows: 

1. Protects visitor and employee health and safety: Will the proposed project 

reduce or eliminate serious risks to the traveling public (motorists, bicyclists, and 

pedestrians) and employees working and or traveling in the road corridor? 

2. Protects government investment: To what extent would this project protect the 

integrity of the existing transportation infrastructure (e.g., roadway, bridge, tunnel, 

transit system, etc.)? 

3. Improves operational efficiency: To what extent would this project repair or 

significantly improve essential operational facilities and/or infrastructure? How 

effectively will the proposed project decrease operational and maintenance costs? 

4. Improves visitor services: Will the proposed project maintain visitor access or 

improve visitor access? What is the significance of the visitor experience served by this 

facility? 

5. Protects or restores natural or cultural resources: Will the proposed project 

directly mitigate or eliminate a specific threat to resources, (e.g., by removing, 

relocating or modifying existing development)? 

6. Provide cost-effective, environmentally responsible, and otherwise beneficial 

development for the national park system: What other benefits or advantages to 

the park, the national park system, or other entities would result from completion of 

the proposed project? What benefits or advantages would the project provide to 

partners, neighbors, communities, or other entities?

7. Cost Sharing and Donated Funds Does the project involve cost sharing, 

donations, and other partnerships? 

As indicated in the Directive, approximately every four years, the Regional office will 

request submittal of updated park project priorities for Category I, as part of the 

Servicewide Comprehensive Call. After the Regional Priority Setting Committee ranks the 

projects for Category I, the Regional Transportation Program Manager then assembles 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 16 

final Regional 3R and 4R priority lists for review by the Regional Leadership Council and 

approval by the Regional Director. Once approved, the lists are incorporated into a fiveyear program of projects that is updated annually. 

The Region’s Category III transportation projects (planning, implementation and 

improvement of alternative transportation systems serving park units) are evaluated 

separately from Category I projects but have similar rating criteria. In addition to transit, 

Category III (ATP) includes ferry and multi-use trail connections to the park’s 

transportation system. Category III transportation projects can also include data collection 

and analysis, value engineering, visitor use assessments, vehicle technology analysis, 

purchase or lease of rolling stock or watercraft, intelligent transportation systems (ITS), 

and financial analysis and reporting. Category III evaluation criteria for planning and 

design/implementation projects are summarized below: 

Category III Planning Criteria 

1. Demonstration of Need 

2. Planning Strategy/Process 

3. Visitor Experience and Resource Benefits 

4. Financial Sustainability 

5. Facility Condition (benefit to the Facility Condition Index) 

Category III Design and Implementation Criteria 

1. Demonstration of Project Need 

2. Visitor Experience (Improvements to Visitor Experience, Access and Safety) 

3. Cost Effectiveness (Financial Planning and Sustainability) 

4. Resource Protection 

5. Deferred Maintenance (Improvement to Facility Condition) 

Similar to Category I, Category III projects are rated by the Regional Priority Setting 

Committee. The Alternative Transportation Program Manager assembles the final 

Regional priority list for review by the Regional Leadership Council and approval by the 

Regional Director; once approved, the list is incorporated into a five-year program of 

projects that is updated annually. 

3R Road Rehabilitation 

All roads and bridges eventually reach the end of service life and need to be rehabilitated 

or replaced. According to FHWA’s Highway Pavement Management Application (HPMA), 

which uses detailed pavement condition data collected by the Road Inventory Program 

(RIP) to model future conditions, PWR has over 770 miles of paved roadway that are in 

need of rehabilitation at an estimated cost of $1.1 billion. The HPMA recommendations 

are based on measurements of pavement ruts, cracks, and ride roughness. The presence of 

ruts or alligator-pattern cracking often indicates the need for more expensive repairs, such 

as full reconstruction of the roadway section. A rough ride can indicate the presence of 

deeper problems, such as embankment slumps or even landslides. Program history shows 

that pavement and structural section repairs for road projects average about 65% of the 

total net construction costs; the remaining costs address necessary repairs to drainage 

structures, embankments, sidewalks, guard rails, retaining walls, and other roadway 

appurtenances. 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 17 

4R Reconstruction/Realignment 

Even without any attempt to expand roadway capacity or mileage, some amount of 4R 

work will remain necessary indefinitely. Most bridge replacements, which all eventually 

come due, qualify as 4R reconstruction. Additionally, many park roadways were 

constructed in the early 1900’s, as the automobile became more widely available to the 

average American household. The modern interstate highway system connecting urban 

and remote areas had not yet been built. As a result, many roads in and around parks 

were built for small volumes of traffic, with no expectation that they would ever carry 

thousands of vehicles per day or accommodate larger vehicles such as intercity buses and 

recreational vehicles. When these roads reach the end of their practical service life, they 

require rehabilitation to provide another 25 to 40 years of use under modern traffic 

volumes, serving in many cases, much larger and heavier vehicles. Most state and county 

roads outside park boundaries have been upgraded to meet modern traffic demands, but 

many park roads have not. When these roads need to be rehabilitated, they often cannot 

be simply repaved to match their existing paved footprint, as they are too narrow. Many 

park roads in PWR are built in steep terrain, and lie on narrow benches that have been cut 

into hillsides; for old narrow roads, these benches need to be widened in order to meet 

current design standards for park roads carrying today’s traffic volumes. 

The potential for impacts to park resources and scenery can be high. Realizing this, NPS 

landscape architects and engineers collaborated shortly after the creation of the Park 

Roads and Parkways Program in 1982 to develop design standards appropriate for park 

settings which were documented in NPS Park Road Standards and approved in 1984. This 

document provides detailed guidance on providing safe passage for roadway users, while 

still preserving the park aesthetic and allowing for the flexibility to redesign roads that 

respect the terrain and blend into the landscape. Historic roadways and the landscapes 

they traverse are treated with care so that the effects of maintenance and repairs do not 

diminish their value or integrity. Road widening is accomplished by cutting inboard slopes, 

filling outboard slopes, and building retaining walls. Areas disturbed by reconstruction are 

revegetated with native plants and protected from future erosion.

Bridges 

Of the 190 bridges and tunnels identified in PWR, 130 carry principal and connector park 

roadways (functional classes one and two). Bridge replacements usually fall within the 4R 

work-type, but can be classified as 3R for smaller bridges that can be replaced for less than 

$1.5 million (net construction). Bridge replacement in the 21st century can be very 

expensive. Current environmental and traffic safety standards often require replacements 

to be significantly longer and wider than older bridges. Square foot costs for replacement, 

including environmental mitigations, can exceed $400/SF and run as high as $600/SF. For 

example, a 175 ft. bridge in Kings Canyon was replaced with a 280 ft.-long bridge, at a cost 

of $5.4 million (net construction, 2010 dollars). PWR annually invests approximately $2.5 

million of Category I FLTP funds in preserving bridges on principal and connector park 

roadways (functional classes one and two). 

Total bridge deck area in PWR is 539,812 SF. Excluding annual and cyclic maintenance 

costs, the average yearly capital cost of bridge ownership in PWR for all functional class 

roadways, can be roughly calculated as: 

539,812 SF bridge area x $500/SF x 1 replacement/75 years = $3,600,000/year 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 18 

However, PWR is not spending $3,600,000 annually on bridge replacements. Many of the 

bridges still have significant service life remaining, and the service of aging bridges can be 

extended cost effectively with some strategic investments in repairs. Analyses prepared by 

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) in 2014 predict that PWR will be able to 

defer replacement for most, if not all, of these older bridges through 2035, by making 

repairs, rehabilitating components, and for lower priority bridges, reducing load limits. 

After 2035, the financial burden related to bridge replacements that can no longer be 

deferred will likely increase significantly. In the meantime, many lower functional class 

bridges (not on primary park routes) may not compete well for repair or replacement 

funds from FLTP and will require funding from other NPS facility programs such as 

Repair/Rehabilitation and Recreation Fee. 

Figure 5

Source: PWR Bridge Condition Analysis, Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division, 2014 

In order to develop an optimal plan for extending service life and reducing near-term 

recapitalization needs, EFLHD performed an analysis using the Pontis bridge management 

program, and provided the following assessments and recommendations (Pontis is the 

software program FHWA uses in organizing bridge data and analyzing engineering and 

economic factors to make recommendations for maintaining, improving, and replacing 

structures). 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 19 

The current condition of the 150 PWR bridges on roads of functional classes 1-5 is 

indicated below. Condition is indicated by the Health Index (HI), a bridge performance 

measure based on the condition of the various bridge elements. The Health Index is 

computed as the ratio of remaining value of the bridge structure to the initial value of the 

structure. 

Figure 6: Health Index of PWR Bridges

Source: PWR Bridge Condition Analysis, Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division, 2014 

 

112

24

14

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Good (92%‐100%) Fair (80%‐91%) Poor (0‐79%)

No. of Structures

Health Index (HI) for PWR structures (2014)

Good (92%‐100%)

Fair (80%‐91%)

Poor (0‐79%)
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 20 

The following analyses were done to estimate the optimum investment levels to maintain 

the HI at the national average level of 92% for the period from 2015 to 2024. 

Figure 7

Source: PWR Bridge Condition Analysis, Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division, 2014 

From the forecast analysis performed for 118 bridges and culverts carrying roads of 

functional classes 1 and 2, an investment level of $3.25 million annually for 10 years was 

recommended to maintain HI at the national level.

95.11

93.67

92.07

91.25

89.70

86.07

84.43

93.60

80.16

80.00

82.00

84.00

86.00

88.00

90.00

92.00

94.00

96.00

98.00

100.00

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Health Index (HI)

Cost to Attain Health Index for NPS Roadway Class 1 & 2 of

PWR Bridges (2014)

$4.75 M/Yr

$4.00 M/Yr

$3.25 M/Yr

$3.00 M/Yr

$2.40 M/Yr

$1.30 M/Yr

$0.80 M/Yr

$0.00M/Yr
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 21 

Figure 8

Source: PWR Bridge Condition Analysis, Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division, 2014 

From the forecast analysis performed for 32 bridges and large culverts carrying roads of 

functional classes 3, 4, and 5, an investment level of $400,000 annually for 10 years was 

recommended to maintain HI at the national level. The projected HI rating for $400,000 

investment level is estimated at 92.40 for the year 2024. 

PWR needs to invest an average of $3.65 million annually in preserving and rehabilitating 

bridges on roads of functional classes 1 through 5 in order to maintain them at the same 

condition level as the current national average.

Management Systems 

MAP-21 contains specific language for Federal land management agencies that receive 

transportation funding through the Act: 

“The Secretary [of Transportation] and the Secretary of each appropriate Federal 

land management agency shall, to the extent appropriate, implement safety, 

bridge, pavement, and congestion management systems for facilities funded under 

the tribal transportation program and the Federal lands transportation program in 

support of asset management.” 

Since 2008, PWR has had pavement and bridge management systems in place, and began 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 22 

implementing specific safety and congestion management systems in 2013 to comply with 

the MAP-21 requirement.

Pavement Preservation 

PWR’s primary capital investment among transportation assets is pavement, the majority 

of which is asphalt concrete comprised primarily of crushed aggregate and asphalt binder. 

PWR has implemented a cyclic pavement preservation program in an effort to slow the 

deterioration of asphalt pavement, which is subject to oxidation, freeze-thaw and 

mechanical wear.. Typical treatments include crack sealing, chip-sealing, micro-sealing and 

limited patching. Depending on traffic loads, climate, subgrade conditions and whether 

the road is subjected to frequent snow plowing, repeated preservation treatments can 

extend the life of an existing asphalt pavement by 20 years or more. Pavement must, 

however, still be in fairly good condition to benefit from treatment. Sealing a road that 

already exhibits “alligator” pattern cracking is of little value, except in cases where there 

are well-drained subgrades, dry climate, little freeze-thaw action and low volumes of 

traffic. Approximately 60% of PWR’s road miles can still benefit from preservation 

treatments.

Average 2013 costs per mile (two-lane road) for micro- and chip-seal treatments are about 

$85,000; treatments can be expected to last approximately seven to ten years. 

Rehabilitation costs, by comparison, average about $750,000 per mile (2013 dollars). PWR 

invests about $6 million annually from its Regular Cyclic Maintenance Program (RCM), and 

another $4 million annually from the Federal Lands Transportation Program on pavement 

preservation. Preliminary and construction engineering require about 11% of total costs, 

leaving approximately $9 million annually for net construction. This spending rate, as of 

2013, is sufficient to keep all of PWR’s paved roads that are still in a condition to benefit, 

on an eight to ten year cycle for treatments. The 2011 Pavements Report from FHWA 

indicated that 674 of PWR’s 1,400 miles of paved road were suitable for preservation 

treatments. Based on field observations from 2008 to 2013 in implementing the regional 

pavement preservation program, it is estimated that an additional 15% of the paved 

roadway inventory, or about 210 miles, is also in suitably good condition for effective 

preservation treatments.

(674 + 210 Miles) x $85,000/Mile x 1 Treatment/8 year avg. cycle = $9,393,000/year 

This investment needs to be maintained indefinitely into the future, and potentially 

increased if funding levels allow for improvements to pavement conditions. As pavement 

service life is extended, the need for major rehabilitation of park roadways is deferred and 

the overall cost to own and operate the roadways is reduced. While in the near-term PWR 

may be less able to afford badly needed rehabilitation of some road segments, in the longterm the investment in pavement preservation will pay dividends: good pavements will be 

kept in good condition longer reducing the need for pavement replacement, increasing 

chances for making progress on improving the system’s overall condition. Ultimately, FLTP 

and other facility program funding levels will determine whether system condition 

improvements will be possible. 

Bridge and Tunnel Preservation 

The Pacific West Region has 178 bridges and 12 tunnels, many of which are on primary 

park roads serving millions of visitors annually. These facilities provide important links 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 23 

through steep terrain, and across washes, creeks, ephemeral streams and large rivers. 

Through the Bridge Inventory Program, FHWA assesses the condition of every vehicular 

bridge and tunnel in the inventory and provides recommendations and estimates on 

needed maintenance and repairs. PWR currently allocates approximately $2.5 million 

annually (gross) out of its FLTP towards design and implementation of preservation work. 

Pacific West Region parks currently spend little project funds for roadway bridges out of 

other NPS programs such as Recreation Fee and Repair/Rehabilitation. Typical work 

includes abutment and pier scour protection, deck sealing, structural steel painting, and 

tunnel-lining patching and sealing. Similar type work is packaged together, sometimes 

across multiple parks within a focused geographic area, in order to maximize efficiency 

with contractor mobilization and construction engineering.

Regular bridge preservation activities are essential to minimizing the total cost of 

ownership. The Pacific West Region should commit to implementing maintenance 

recommendations from FHWA, taking care of all annual maintenance requirements at the 

park level, and queuing up more complex cyclic maintenance and repair work for the 

regional rehabilitation and preservation programs.

Safety Management 

Motor vehicle crashes are a major cause of death and injury in PWR parks. NPS has not 

had a servicewide accident reporting system since the Servicewide Traffic Accident 

Reporting System (STARS) ceased to function in 2005. For the subset of PWR parks where 

data is available, there are indications that specific routes pose higher dangers to motorists 

than others, and that some of these routes pose higher risk of serious accident than do 

similar two-lane rural roads in the surrounding state. These are routes or roadway 

segments that need special attention from roadway design and traffic engineers, to 

determine potential causes and identify remedies. PWR has begun implementing a Safety 

Management Program, based on existing project needs identified by engineering studies 

and park staff observations of high accident sites. However, additional analysis of larger 

traffic accident patterns is needed to identify other problem areas that may have been 

undetected. Projects should be identified based on the number of accidents on a 

particular roadway segment, as well as on accident rates for the segment. A route or a 

segment of a route may have low crash totals, but if the traffic volume is also low, it is 

possible that the crash rate is high. The goal should be to make NPS roads at least as safe 

as traveling on similar roads outside the park boundary. For example, the overall crash 

rate for the two-lane rural roads in the state of California is 117 per 100 million vehicle 

miles traveled (MVMT). The 2001-2005 crash rate in Joshua Tree NP was 180 per MVMT, 

indicating that visitors are increased risk on the park’s roadways (source: CH2MHill Report: 

Pacific West Region Crash Data Summary, 2010).

In order to calculate crash rates, more effort is required to quantify traffic volumes on 

major park roads. The Washington Support Office (WASO) administers a traffic study 

program to collect traffic numbers for about 30 parks. The parks are included in the 

program based on a number of factors, including total roadway mileage, total bridge 

length, congestion levels, number of fatal and injury crashes, crashes per mile, percent of 

commuter traffic, and number of annual visitors. For park roads outside the WASO the 

collection program, PWR and FHWA are conducting an effort in 2014 to collect traffic 

counts on major routes in parks outside the WASO program. This information will be used 

to supplement information already collected by the WASO traffic study program. 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 24 

Figure 9 

Source: CH2MHill Report: Pacific West Region Crash Data Summary, 2010.

Crash records are being collected for parks since 2005 when STARS became inoperable. 

These records, minus personally identifying information, are being entered into a Traffic 

Accident Reporter (TAR) database, which is managed through the WASO office. This 

database will be used to report out crash totals and rates for roadway segments, helping 

park and program managers identify potential projects or other interventions (such as 

better enforcement or education). The TAR is intended as an interim stop-gap measure to 

provide a reporting system until a similar function has been added to the Incident 

Management Analysis and Reporting System (IMARS), at which time the TAR could be 

retired.

PWR invests approximately $1 million annually on stand-alone safety improvement 

projects. Another $1 million or more in safety improvements is incorporated each year 

into regularly programmed 3R and 4R projects. This work includes intersection 

realignments, tunnel lighting upgrades, spot-safety realignments for problem curves or 

slumps on roadways, installation of bike lanes where modal conflicts exist, rock-fall hazard 

mitigation (e.g. scaling or rock-bolting), guardrail replacements, installation of rumble 

strips and roadside delineators, etc. 

Unit-level transportation safety studies should be prepared to develop prioritized safety 

improvement lists for parks. These studies should be developed in concert with FHWA 

engineers and Visitor and Resource Protection staff, and should address the Four “E’s”: 

Engineering, Enforcement, Education and Emergency Response. As more data becomes 

available for analysis and projects are identified and scoped, the Safety Management 

Program funding level should be re-evaluated.

Congestion Management 

Fortunately, the vast majority of roadways within PWR are relatively free of traffic 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

LAKE YOSE GOGA OLYM MORA DEVA SEKI JOTR HAVO CRLA REDW PORE LAVO WHIS HALE

Severe Crashes (Injury and Fatality)

1990 to 2005
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 25 

congestion. However, there are times when the visitor experience is negatively affected by 

the number of other vehicles sharing the roadways, especially when there is an 

expectation for solitude. There also can be times when traffic on a small number of road 

segments comes to a near standstill. Most traffic jams are associated with back-ups at 

entrance stations or at entrances to parking areas that have reached capacity. One 

exception is the Valley Loop Road in Yosemite Valley, which experiences traffic delays at 

intersections, due to the large numbers of pedestrians crossing roadways at key locations. 

Long delays on the Sunrise Road at Mount Rainier are caused when the terminus parking 

lot reaches capacity, typically on summer weekends or when the weather is fair. Traffic 

delays also occur at Mount Rainier at the entrance to the parking lots at Paradise, causing 

back-ups on Nisqually-Paradise Road, the main park entrance road from the west. Similar 

conditions occur at Haleakala NP, Muir Woods NM, Pinnacles NP and Sequoia NP.

A congestion survey administered to parks by the Denver Service Center in 2010 confirmed 

known problem areas in PWR (See Appendix 1, Congestion Mapping from Technical 

Memorandum 7: Compiled Congestion Survey Information Report for reported congestion 

problems by park). The primary problem experienced in PWR parks is caused by demand 

exceeding supply in parking lots, usually on busy weekends. Congestion problems should 

be monitored, and in some cases, projects can be identified to address the issue. However, 

care should be taken to preserve the visitor experience beyond the parking area: 

sometimes an increase in parking capacity or the use of shuttle buses can overload a visitor 

center, vista point or front-country trail system. It may be beneficial to conduct Visitor 

Experience/Resource Protection (VERP) studies or similar types of visitor use assessments to 

determine whether to proceed with a transportation project that would increase capacity. 

Chronic delays at entrance stations can often be alleviated with additional entry lanes. 

However, problems must be considered holistically, as it is possible to improve flow in one 

location, only to exacerbate problems and delays in another location. As defined in the 

NPS Management Policies, visitor carrying capacity is the type and level of visitor use that 

can be accommodated while sustaining the desired resource and visitor experience 

conditions in the park. Park managers are charged with identifying and staying within 

carrying capacities, so that park uses are managed in a way that they do not unacceptably 

impact the resources and values for which the parks were established. 

Because of the types of interventions that are used to deal with congestion, e.g. 

expanding parking capacity, traffic demand management, shuttle service or reservations 

systems, congestion management is best combined with integrated planning efforts, which 

examine visitor experience, management zones, and broader resource protection goals. 

The transportation program should support funding transportation elements for this type 

of planning, but should not be used to fund visitor experience or resource impact studies 

for facilities like trails or visitor centers, which are more appropriately funded though 

other U.S.C. Title 54 NPS programs.

PWR invests approximately $500,000 of Category I funds and $1,000,000 of Category III 

funds annually on congestion management projects. These projects include parking lot 

expansion and reconfiguration, as well as planning, design and implementation of shuttle 

bus systems, transit staging areas and traffic demand management tools such as roadside 

variable message signs and web-based traffic information. 

 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 26 

Traveler Information 

Traveler information, whether provided by permanent signage, variable message signs 

along roadways, AM radio broadcasts, websites, smart phone applications, or in person, is 

a key tool in facilitating visitor access to parks. Effective traveler information and way 

finding signage improve visitor experiences by helping visitors navigate a park with ease, 

and can help visitors avoid crowded locations and mitigate congestion. NPS partners, 

including gateway communities and the tourism industry, often play critical roles in 

getting information to visitors. 

All NPS unit websites provide a “Plan Your Visit” page that typically includes information 

on directions, maps, temporary advisories and other information needed to plan a park 

visit. NPS is currently working on improving consistency and content for these pages, and 

is converting its websites to a new platform that will enable optimal viewing on mobile 

devices. The growing availability of GPS-enabled smart phones is increasing the potential 

to reach more visitors with on-demand, “just-in-time” information, such as real-time 

routing around traffic congestion, accident reporting, transit departure and arrival times, 

and other important travel information. Facilities that provide these types of services are 

often referred to as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), which can be defined as the 

application of advanced information and communications technology to surface 

transportation in order to achieve enhanced safety and mobility while reducing the 

environmental impact of transportation. 

PWR invests about $300,000 annually in FLTP Category III funds for ITS. These systems are 

primarily intended to address traffic congestion problems. Upcoming projects include the 

following locations: 

‐ Golden Gate NRA: Marin Parklands and Muir Woods 

‐ Mount Rainier NP (Sunrise and Paradise Developed Areas) 

‐ Yosemite NP (Baseline Traffic Management System is in place with expansion 

plans for specific areas) 

The need to expand or manage the carrying capacity of existing infrastructure through ITS 

will increase as park visitation grows and visitation patterns shift. Improvements to the 

transportation networks will need to be coordinated with careful assessments about 

carrying capacity of other “downstream” visitor facilities, such as visitor centers, trails, 

overlooks and rest areas.

Access to the Park Boundary 

In the past thirty years since the creation of the Federal Lands Transportation Program, 

pressure to address failing infrastructure around parks has increased. Small rural roads 

often did not get much local support because of low numbers of residential or commercial 

users. However, these facilities are often vital for park access and for the tourism economy 

of the local communities. Some of these roads have benefitted from funding supplied 

through the Public Lands Highway Discretionary program, but this program was 

eliminated with the passage of MAP-21. However, the new legislation did create the 

Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP), a $250 million/year national program to address 

these needs. Western states receive a sizeable portion of the program’s funding, due to 

the large amounts of Federal Land within their boundaries. FLAP is also providing critical 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 27 

funding assistance for non-NPS roads within park boundaries that might otherwise see 

badly needed maintenance deferred indefinitely as local owners struggle to meet the 

financial demands of their transportation networks. Examples include Sir Francis Drake 

Boulevard at Point Reyes NS and John F. Kennedy Memorial Drive at Whiskeytown NRA. 

This funding assistance may reduce pressure for local governments to transfer ownership 

and maintenance responsibilities to NPS. 

Increasingly, FLAP funds are being directed towards improving transit and other multimodal connections from local systems to park destinations, as local agencies develop their 

programs and improve cooperation with NPS managers. 

Table 4 

Annual Federal Lands Access Program 

Funding by State* as Established by MAP-21 

*only PWR states shown 

Typical projects that receive FLAP funding include roadway rehabilitation, transit stop 

improvements, multi-use trails and highway enhancements such as rest stops. Assuming 

FLAP is extended in future transportation authorizations, PWR parks are tentatively 

programmed to benefit from almost $43 million, for 11 projects in WA, OR and CA, from 

2014 to 2018. 

Table 5 

Programmed FLAP Projects Benefitting PWR Parks (FY 2014 to FY 2018) 

California $35,717,269

Montana $22,789,053

Oregon $22,078,490

Idaho $17,061,924

Washington $13,981,748

Nevada $7,085,158

Hawaii $265,000

FLAP Program

Amount State Park Local Recipient Project Title

$12,081,000 WA OLYM Jefferson Cty Rehabilitate Upper Hoh Road

$739,000 WA LARO Lincoln Cty Rehabilitate Hawk Creek Road

$6,267,000 WA SAJH San Juan Cty Cattle Point Road Relocation

$950,000 WA NOCA Skagit Cty Hard Creek Bridge Replacement

$1,119,000 WA LEWI WA DOT Dismal Nitch Rest Area Improvements

$164,000 WA OLYM WA DOT US 101 Lake Crescent Bus Stop and Pullout

$999,733 WA OLYM WA DOT Rehabilitate East Beach Road

$500,000 OR JODA Wheeler Cty Bridge Creek Road and Burnt Ranch Road Overlay

$154,000 OR ORCA Josephine Cty Oregon Caves Highway Enhancement Project

$15,048,838 CA PORE Marin County Rehabilitate Sir Francis Drake Boulevard

$4,800,980 CA WHIS Shasta County Rehabilitate JFK Memorial Drive

$42,823,551 Total
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 28 

Potential Threats Posed by Climate Change 

Threats to park transportation systems related to climate change vary by location. In the 

Pacific Northwest, frequent flooding has become a serious problem. There has been a 

general shift since the late 1970s from a spring snowmelt dominated system to one 

dominated by fall and early winter rain-on-snow flooding. These flood events have been 

larger and more frequent than in years past, and have resulted in more damage to 

infrastructure. Northern areas are expected to continue to get more frequent and heavier 

storms, while southern areas are expected to receive less precipitation. Melting glaciers 

are generating higher sediment loads in outfall streams that often get deposited on 

roadways or under bridges that require significant maintenance efforts to clear. Roadways 

that parallel rivers and streams within or adjacent to the active stream channel are 

increasingly subject to damage. In extreme cases, these roads have to be relocated or 

abandoned. 

Northwest roads with frequent flood damage: 

 Mount Rainier NP 

‐ Nisqually-Paradise Road 

‐ Westside Road (unpaved) 

‐ White River Campground Road 

‐ Highway 410 

‐ Carbon River Road (unpaved, mostly converted to trail) 

 Olympic NP 

‐ Hoh River Road (both NPS-owned segment and county road segment below) 

‐ Graves Creek Road (unpaved) 

‐ Elwha Valley Road 

 North Cascades NP 

‐ Stehekin Valley Road (partially paved) 

‐ Cascade Pass Road 

‐ Highway 20 (not NPS-owned) 

Other geographic areas within PWR may also be at increasing risk of flooding by streams, 

but recent storm damage trends do not support this. Parks in the California mountain 

ranges have been experiencing increased susceptibility to wildfire, and subsequent erosion 

and mass sliding of burned slopes has caused increased damage to roadways. 

Sea level rise poses a threat to long-term sustainability of a small subset of transportation 

facilities in PWR. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts a range of 

scenarios, with predicted sea level elevations rising between 0.6 feet and 2.9 feet by 2100. 

Predicted sea level rise varies significantly by geographic location, with areas in the Pacific 

Northwest rising about half as much as areas in the southern part of the region. Effects on 

facilities will vary, depending on other factors such as geomorphology, storm frequency, 

wave patterns, local storm water drainage capacity, and types of construction. Rising sea 

levels may also alter or destroy natural features such as beaches or coastal bluffs, which 

may lead to changes in visitation patterns that will need to be taken into consideration 

when making transportation investment decisions. NPS and relevant non-NPS facilities 

likely to be affected to some degree in this time frame are listed below (non-NPS facilities 

shown in italics). 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 29 

 Channel Islands NP: Piers and associated facilities on Anacapa, Santa Cruz, Santa 

Rosa and Santa Barbara Islands 

 Golden Gate NRA 

‐ Stinson Beach and parking areas 

‐ Muir Beach, parking areas and access road

‐ Rodeo Beach, Rodeo Lagoon and Mitchell Road 

‐ Fort Point and Marine Avenue 

‐ Crissy Field and multi-use trail 

‐ Ocean Beach and multiuse trail, parking area

 Olympic NP: Kalaloch Lodge, Rialto Beach 

 Point Reyes NS: Drakes Beach Lot, Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, Highway 1 along 

Tomales Bay and Bolinas Lagoon

 Redwood NP: Enderts Beach Road, Redwood Information Center, US 101 at 

Wilson Creek, Freshwater Lagoon and Big Lagoon

 San Francisco Maritime NHP: Aquatic Park and Golden Gate Promenade 

 WW II Valor in the Pacific NM: Pearl Harbor Visitor Center and Parking Lot 

Transportation and Resource Protection 

Protection of sensitive natural and cultural resources is a basic requirement of all 

transportation program activities. The need for maintaining and improving access must be 

considered in relation to the core National Park Service mission of resource preservation 

for both present and future generations. The range of resources potentially affected by 

transportation projects and operations includes cultural and natural landscapes, scenic 

vistas, archaeological features, wildlife habitat, and the quality of our air and water. 

Historic Transportation Assets 

As a principal custodian of historic properties, NPS manages a number of historic roadways 

that require special treatment to preserve their integrity. When it comes time to 

rehabilitate these roads, or make spot repairs to segments damaged by storms or 

landslides, it is often necessary to reconstruct contributing elements such as stone guard 

walls or curbing. This must be done in a way that is consistent with the Secretary of 

Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. These guidelines establish 

standards for the rehabilitation or reconstruction work that may need to be accomplished 

to keep a historic road in service, and lay out specific requirements for how historic 

character is to be preserved. Rehabilitation on historic roads is more expensive than for 

non-historic roads: typical work in PWR parks involves costly rehabilitation or 

reconstruction of Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) masonry structures, including retaining 

walls, guard walls, culvert headwalls, curbing, and stone-lined drainage features. 

Major Historic Transportation Assets in PWR Parks: 

Park Roadway System, Mount Rainier NP 

Rim Drive, Crater Lake NP 

Lassen Park Highway, Lassen Volcanic NP 

Valley Loop Road, Yosemite NP 

Wawona Tunnel, Yosemite NP 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 30 

Generals Highway, Sequoia NP 

Crater Rim Drive, Hawaii Volcanoes NP 

The current replacement value (CRV) of all historic roadways in PWR is currently estimated 

at $2.1 billion, including bridges, parking areas and tunnels. For comparison, the total CRV 

for all roadways in PWR, non-historic and historic, is $6.2 billion. The deferred 

maintenance estimate for historic roadways totals $362 million, approximately 37% of the 

$976 million deferred maintenance costs for PWR roadways. 

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Air quality impacts from transportation are frequently cited as contributors to poor air 

quality. The effects are most noticeable in congested parks and non-attainment areas 

designated by the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Most parks do not have direct influence over the air quality controls affecting the park and 

must coordinate with the congressionally-designated regional air quality authority, 

generally a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) or regional air quality planning 

commission. Nearby or upwind metropolitan areas, industrial or agricultural operations 

can significantly affect air quality within parks, endanger health, contribute to smog and 

reduce visibility. 

Several areas adjacent to or near parks have been identified by the EPA as non-attainment 

areas for specific air pollutants. Non-attainment areas must plan for reduction of 

pollutants like carbon monoxide, ozone, and airborne particulate matter and must include 

those plans in their own regional long range transportation plans. Regional air quality 

conformity determinations are based on aggregated modeling for the entire region. 

MPOs develop planning models to bring emissions into compliance with air quality 

regulations. Parks within or near these areas may be eligible for federal Congestion 

Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) funds to help achieve or maintain 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Qualifying parks work directly with 

regional planning agencies and MPOs to determine appropriate actions. 

 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 31 

Table 6 Air Quality Non-Attainment 

Source: The Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants, EPA, 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ 

Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat 

PWR generally maintains its transportation infrastructure within its current footprint, 

however some assets such as roadways can pose mobility difficulties and hazards for some 

threatened, endangered or otherwise protected species. Consideration of habitat impacts 

is an important factor in expansion or relocation of transportation facilities. Additionally, 

roadway rehabilitation projects that include culvert or bridge work should include 

Park Non‐attainment Area Air Pollutants Associated MPO

NPS or NPS‐

sponsored

Transit

System

CABR San Diego County 8‐hr Ozone

San Diego Association of

Governments No

CHIS

South Coast Air Quality

Management District 8‐hr Ozone

Santa Barbara County

Association of Governments Yes

DEPO

Great Basin Unified Air Quality

Management District

24‐hr Particulate Matter ‐ Coarse

(PM 10)

San Joaquin County Council of

Governments Yes

EUON

Bay Area Air Quality

Management District

8‐hr Ozone; 24‐hr Particulate

Matter ‐ Fine (PM 2.5)

Metropolitan Transportation

Commission Yes

GOGA

Bay Area Air Quality

Management District

8‐hr Ozone; 24‐hr Particulate

Matter ‐ Fine (PM 2.5)

Metropolitan Transportation

Commission Yes

JOMU

Bay Area Air Quality

Management District

8‐hr Ozone; 24‐hr Particulate

Matter ‐ Fine (PM 2.5)

Metropolitan Transportation

Commission No

JOTR

South Coast Air Quality

Management District 8‐hr Ozone

Southern California Association

of Governments No

LAKE Clark County Carbon Monoxide

Regional Transportation

Commission of Southern

Nevada No

MOJA

Mojave Desert Air Quality

Management District

8‐hr Ozone; 24‐hr Particulate

Matter ‐ Coarse (PM 10)

Southern California Association

of Governments No

POCH

Bay Area Air Quality

Management District

8‐hr Ozone; 24‐hr Particulate

Matter ‐ Fine (PM 2.5)

Metropolitan Transportation

Commission Yes

PORE

Bay Area Air Quality

Management District

8‐hr Ozone; 24‐hr Particulate

Matter ‐ Fine (PM 2.5)

Metropolitan Transportation

Commission Yes

RORI

Bay Area Air Quality

Management District

8‐hr Ozone; 24‐hr Particulate

Matter ‐ Fine (PM 2.5)

Metropolitan Transportation

Commission No

SAFR

Bay Area Air Quality

Management District

8‐hr Ozone; 24‐hr Particulate

Matter ‐ Fine (PM 2.5)

Metropolitan Transportation

Commission No

SAMO

South Coast Air Quality

Management District

8‐hr Ozone; 24‐hr Particulate

Matter ‐ Fine (PM 2.5)

Southern California Association

of Governments No

SEKI

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution

Control District

8‐hr Ozone; 24‐hr Particulate

Matter ‐ Fine (PM 2.5); 24‐hr

Particulate Matter ‐ Coarse (PM

10)

San Joaquin County Council of

Governments Yes

YOSE

Mariposa County Air Pollution

Control District

8‐hr Ozone; 24‐hr Particulate

Matter ‐ Fine (PM 2.5)

San Joaquin County Council of

Governments Yes
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 32 

considerations for accommodating passage of fish and other aquatic organisms through 

the structures. 

Key habitat issues facing PWR parks: 

1. Lake Mead NRA, Mojave NP, and Joshua Tree NP all have significant areas of desert 

tortoise habitat. Tortoises tend to create burrows in roadside berms that result 

from normal maintenance grading after storm events. 

2. Fish passage is of particular concern in western Washington, due to binding 

commitments made by Territorial Governor Isaac Stevens to local Indian tribes in 

1854-1855 to protect the local fisheries for the tribes’ benefit. On March 29, 2013, 

the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington issued a permanent 

injunction requiring certain State of Washington agencies to provide and maintain 

fish passage for salmon at numerous culverts under State‐owned roads, as part of 

United States v. Washington, 2013. The court imposed the injunction as a remedy 

following its 2007 declaratory order, finding that the State has built and operates 

stream culverts that block fish passage to and from the Tribes’ usual and 

accustomed fishing places and these culverts deprive the Tribes of the fishing rights 

reserved by the Stevens Treaties. While the court order only pertains to 

Washington state roads, it may eventually pertain to all federal and local 

government roads within the case area.

3. Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl is located in Olympic NP, North 

Cascades NP, Mount Rainier NP, Crater Lake NP, Oregon Caves NM, and Redwood 

NP. Road rehabilitation and other construction work must minimize disruptions, 

especially during breeding seasons. 

4. Hawaiian nene and petrel habitats exist in Haleakala NP and Hawaii Volcanoes NP. 

Road rehabilitation and other construction work must be designed and scheduled 

to minimize disruptions, especially during breeding seasons. 

Motor Vehicle/Wildlife Collisions 

Vehicle collisions with wildlife are a concern in several parks within PWR, however only 

about 4% of PWR reported motor vehicle crashes involve collisions with wildlife (as 

compared to 17% for collisions Servicewide). For the individuals involved in crashes, 

however, the costs can be high; about a quarter of reported crashes result in injury or a 

fatality. Animal mortality associated with crashes is high and collisions with smaller 

animals are assumed to be under-reported, as these often do not result in vehicle damage 

and subsequent accident reports. 

Scenery 

Protecting natural scenery is fundamental to the National Park Service’s mission. 

Roadways can provide invaluable access to important vistas but can also detract from the 

landscape if insensitively designed or maintained. Roadside vistas, especially those which 

are historic, should be maintained to provide continued enjoyment for park visitors, as 

originally intended. Plans for roadway realignments should take advantage of potential 

new vistas and avoid disturbing existing landscapes. Directional and way finding signage 

should be designed to avoid clutter and redundancy. Roadside vegetation can provide 

valuable screening of visually obtrusive facilities such as water tanks, service roads, 

communication towers, and maintenance buildings. Detailed vista management plans are 

a good means of documenting park vista management goals and implementation 

methods. 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 33 

Storm water Runoff and Water Quality 

Impermeable surfaces of roads and parking areas increase the volume and intensity of 

storm water flows, potentially leading to erosion and sedimentation of downstream water 

bodies. Runoff may also contain contaminants, especially runoff from high-use parking 

lots, where cooling engines tend to drip oil or other fluids onto the pavement. Runoff 

from these areas can be treated by a variety of methods, including vegetated buffer zones, 

“bioswales” (shallow drainage courses with gently sloped sides, designed to remove silt 

and pollution from surface runoff water), permeable pavement or infiltration beds, and 

catch basin filtration systems. 

Roadside Vegetation and Native Flora 

NPS is charged with conserving natural resources and protecting native plant species. 

Roadside vegetation is often a key element in preserving the integrity of the roadway 

prism. However, proper maintenance involves periodic mowing and grading of ditches, 

clearing shoulders of woody vegetation, and selective clearing or pruning to provide for 

needed sight distance at intersections and sharp curves. Invasive weeds are becoming an 

increasing problem in many PWR parks, and roadway projects need to take weed 

proliferation and control into consideration. Proper weeding and revegetation of areas 

disturbed by construction activities is often critical to avoiding erosion and weed 

infestation problems. Projects teams need to plan ahead to propagate native seed or 

plantings for use in roadside revegetation work. 

Financial Analysis 

Background 

The financial health of the NPS transportation portfolio is declining. Analyses prepared for 

the NPS National Long Range Transportation Plan show that between 2006 and 2012, the 

National Park Service invested on average $469 million annually in transportation 

(including Title 23, Title 49 and Title 54 fund sources). In recent years, funding levels for 

the most significant transportation funding programs have leveled, dropped or been 

eliminated. NPS forecasts a reduced annual average of $391 million in funding for capital, 

operations and maintenance for the period 2015 to 2020, yet annual transportation needs 

are estimated to be $1.38 billion, leaving an annual Servicewide unmet need of $989 

million. 

Fund Sources 

The NPS list of fund sources available for transportation-related expenses exceeds 60 fund 

sources. However, the vast majority of transportation funding from 2006 to 2012 has 

come from 12 primary sources. FLTP Category I-3R and -4R is the largest single funding 

source, at 52.4% of the total. The seven-year averages for expenditures out of these funds 

are shown in Table 7. 

 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 34 

Table 7

PWR Primary Fund Sources and Work Types 

Work Types 

NPS has designated five work types for ownership and operation of transportation assets, 

and check marks indicate which fund sources are being used for each work type. The work 

types are defined as: 

1. Maintenance 

o Corrective Maintenance (CM): Unscheduled reactive repairs that would not be 

estimated and planned, but are accomplished by local staff or existing service 

contractors. 

o Preventive Maintenance (PM): regularly scheduled periodic maintenance 

activities (within a year) on selected assets, such as cleaning ditches and 

mowing; 

o Regular and Recurring Maintenance (RM): work activities that recur based on 

normal wear patterns on a periodic cycle of greater than one year and less than 

ten years. This includes chip- and micro-seals for asphalt pavements, roadway 

striping, deck joint cleaning and sealing for bridges, etc.; 

o Deferred Maintenance (DM): maintenance that was not performed when 

Primary Fund Administration

Average Annual

Obligations (2006‐

2012, 2012

dollars)***

Portion

of Total

Mainten‐ 

ance

Component

Renewal/Re‐ 

capitalization

Capital

Improve‐ 

ment/New

Construc‐ 

tion

Transit

Opera‐ 

tions Planning

Title 54, US Department of Interior, National Park Service

Operational Base* ‐ 

Park Park Unit $8,965,703 10.7%

 

Rec Fee 80% Park Unit $3,653,160 4.3%    

Transportation Fee Park Unit $536,118 0.6% 

Cyclic Maintenance

NPS Regional

Office $7,569,802 9.0%



Repair/Rehab

NPS Regional

Office $2,012,353 2.4%



Rec Fee 20%

NPS Regional

Office $47,515 0.1%

 

Line Item

Construction DOI $5,780,333 6.9%



Emergency Storm

and Flood WASO See Operational Base

 

Title 23, US DOT/FHWA, Federal Lands Transportation Program

FLTP Cat I‐3R & 4R

NPS Regional

Office/WASO $44,013,153 52.4%

  

FLTP Cat III ‐ ATP

NPS Regional

Office/WASO $2,347,116 2.8%

 

FHWA ‐ PLHD** FHWA $2,206,438 2.6%  

FHWA ERFO FHWA $3,213,425 3.8% 

Title 49, US DOT/Federal Transit Admin.

TRIP/ATPPL** DOI/DOT/FTA $3,718,977 4.4%   

TOTAL $84,064,094 100.0%

* Includes Emergency Storm and Flood disbursed by WASO; ** Amount indicated reflects grant award amounts.

*** Source: AFS3 Summary Data Reports
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 35 

scheduled and is delayed. Continued deferment of regular, preventive or 

recurring maintenance will result in deficiencies and higher long-term costs. 

2. Component Renewal/Recapitalization: The planned replacement of a component 

or system that will reach the end of its useful life, based on the measured 

condition and life-cycle analysis. This includes 3R rehabilitation of roadway 

pavements and 4R reconstruction of roadways, when reconstruction is necessary to 

replace worn out facilities in situations where the roadway prism needs to be 

widened or realigned to serve current day traffic volumes and meet modern 

design standards. Work also includes unscheduled emergency repairs to roadways, 

in response to storm damage, rock fall, landslides, unexpected bridge 

undermining, etc. Emergency repairs that were not reimbursed by the Emergency 

Repairs for Federally Owned Roads (ERFO) program have averaged $1.2 million 

annually from 2006 to 2012. 

3. Capital Improvement/New Construction: Major new construction projects and 

investments where none previously existed. Recent capital improvement projects 

have included bike paths and new transit facilities such as transit stops and 

shelters. No new NPS transit systems are anticipated within PWR. 

4. Transit Operations include costs to operate the two NPS-owned and operated 

systems in the Pacific West Region. It does not include operational costs for 

vendor-operated systems, which are self-supporting and not funded directly by the 

National Park Service. Transit capital expenditures are included in the Component 

Renewal/Recapitalization work type. 

5. Planning: Transportation plans, technical support for general management plans 

and environmental planning (NEPA) clearances at both the regional and individual 

park levels. NEPA compliance for Category I road work is included in the gross 

project costs under the Component Renewal/Recapitalization work type. 

 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 36 

Distribution of Funding Over Work Types, 2006 to 2012 

Average expenditures from 2006 to 2012 are shown below. 

Figure 10: Expenditures by Work Type 

PWR Annual Average, 2006-2012 

$84.1 Million (without ARRA Funding*) 

Source: AFS3 Summary Data Reports and PTATS Allocation Reports 

*In 2009, funding was supplemented by $68.9 million as part of the one-time stimulus 

from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Given the one-time nature of 

the additional funds, this plan uses the seven-year average of $84.1 million, as calculated 

without the ARRA funds. This average better represents the typical amount of 

transportation funds available, and forms the baseline for future funding forecasts. 

 

Maintenance

$20,519,808

24.4%

Component

Renewal/Re‐

capital.

$45,797,616

54.5%

Capital

Impr./ New

Constr.

$13,274,066

5.8%

Transit

Operations

$2,098,361

2.5%

Planning

$2,374,244

2.8%
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 37 

Figure 11: PWR Total Funding Obligations 

2006 - 2012 

Source: AFS3 Summary Data Reports and PTATS Allocation Reports 

Funding Projections 

This plan forecasts future transportation related financial resources from 2015 to 2035. 

Future funding is modeled on historic and current amounts and assumes no major changes 

in Congressional funding levels or programs. Two exceptions are the recent cancellations 

of both the Public Lands Highway Discretionary (PLHD) and Transit in Parks (TRIP) 

programs, which from 2006 to 2012 amounted to over $5.9 million annually for PWR parks. 

All future fund amounts are in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars. 

Future funding forecasts are based on the historical average, increasing 2.1% annually 

after 2012. The trend from 2006 to 2012 follows a bell-shaped curve, peaking in fiscal year 

2009, then decreasing, essentially ending up with an average funding level equal to that in 

2006 (no growth in actual dollars, and a decrease in constant 2013 dollars). The 2.1% 

anticipated growth rate used for the projection is equal to the agency standard inflation 

rate of 2.1%; in other words, purchasing power is forecast to remain constant at today’s 

levels. 

The estimated growth rate is conservatively optimistic. Funding spikes similar to those 

provided through ARRA may recur, but such a possibility was not factored in the forecast 

due to and the uncertainty of future economic and political pressures. Other innovative 

funding mechanisms and financial partnerships were also considered but were not 

included in the financial forecasts due to the uncertainty of obtaining such funds for the 

types of projects typically implemented in national parks. 

The 2.1% NPS inflation value trend was used to compare needs identified in the Needs 

Assessment. Key characteristics of the financial forecast include: 

 No new fund sources are projected to be available during the planning period. 

 Maintenance - Annual maintenance funds continue to provide the second largest 

$0

$20,000,000

$40,000,000

$60,000,000

$80,000,000

$100,000,000

$120,000,000

$140,000,000

$160,000,000

$180,000,000

$200,000,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

ARRA

Total Funding (non‐ARRA)

Annual Average

$84.1 Million without

2009 ARRA Funds
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 38 

financial input to the total transportation program. 

 Component Renewal/Recapitalization - Reducing deferred maintenance continues 

to be the priority and receives the majority of funding. 

 Capital Improvements/New Construction - The loss of the TRIP and PLHD programs 

means an annual reduction of approximately $1.6 million in funds for capital 

improvements. 

 Transit Operations - Funds for the operation of the PINN shuttle will come primarily 

from a newly authorized transportation fee. No new grant program is anticipated 

to replace the discontinued Transit in Parks Program, which previously provided an 

average of $895,000 annually for transit operations in PWR. Transit capital funds 

are included in the component renewal/recapitalization work type. 

 Planning funds for transportation are indicated in the forecast at below current 

levels, due to the loss of planning funds previously attained through the PLHD and 

TRIP programs. These programs provided an average of $1 million annually for 

planning efforts from 2006 to 2012. 

The Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP) is the predominant transportation 

funding source for national parks in PWR. The current transportation spending 

authorization, and other NPS fund sources such as Recreation Fee, Cyclic Maintenance, 

Repair/Rehabilitation, and Line Item Construction, are expected to be continued, and to 

increase only as much the forecast inflation rate of 2.1%. Future funding totals are 

forecast below, shown in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars. 

Needs Assessment 

This assessment identifies existing and future transportation needs for the Pacific West 

Region. It examines both programmed and unfunded needs from present to 2035. The 

analysis finds significant gaps between projected funding and estimated needs, in 

particular for preventive maintenance and operations, rehabilitation of roadways and 

parking areas, and recapitalization of transit vehicles. 

Insufficient past funding has left the transportation system in need of significant repairs 

and major investments just to maintain the current infrastructure, operations, and level of 

service. Very little new construction or new service is being contemplated: 99% of the 

costs for work identified in PWR’s current project priority lists for Category I/3R, Category 

I/4R and Category III is for maintenance, repair or recapitalization of existing roadway, 

parking and transit assets. Few major capital investments or new construction projects 

have been built in recent years that add new roadway capacity or new connections. 

Recently constructed capital improvement projects include bicycle/multi-use paths that 

increase mobility and access for non-motorized modes of travel. These projects typically 

use existing trail alignments. Transit service is provided through a variety of means, 

including NPS ownership, concessions contracts, cooperative agreements and service 

contracts. 

In general, visitation levels at PWR parks have been fairly constant over the last twenty 

years. Significant increases in visitation are not anticipated for the planning period 

covered in this plan. 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 39 

Major Assumptions 

Findings are based on the assumptions indicated below. These assumptions are required 

to extend past data and near-term future projections out to 2035. 

No major additions (transfers from local governments, new construction) or 

deletions (demolitions/removals) to PWR’s inventory of transportation 

infrastructure. As previously discussed, these are both possible but very difficult to 

predict with any certainty at this time. 

Growth Rate – Growth in needs includes a 2.1% annual rate of inflation in order to 

provide a more accurate figure for the expenditure year. 

American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) – PWR received a significant 

increase in project funding in 2009 a result of ARRA. For the purposes of this 

planning document, a similar funding increase is not anticipated within the 

planning timeframe, and ARRA funds were not used in baseline funding 

calculations. 

Alternative Transportation Systems (ATS) – Unless they can be shown to be 

financially sustainable, this plan assumes no implementation of new NPS-owned, 

operated, or maintained systems, due to (1) the accelerating costs of transit 

operations, (2) the perceived instability of transit funding, and (3) the need to 

commit operational funds to existing systems. Transit needs from existing ATS are 

extended cyclically from current pro forma forecasts. 

Key Components of Needs 

Asset Management 

Forty-three percent of future needs are for pavement replacement or preservation. Due to 

expected funding shortfalls, the overall pavement condition for PWR roads is not 

anticipated to improve despite ongoing implementation of a comprehensive pavement 

preservation program. Focus on the primary park routes, however, should enable modest 

improvements in pavement condition for those roadways. 

Transit 

Most of the transit operations are projected to be fully funded under existing sources 

through the planning period. Mount Rainier NP’s transit service has not been funded since 

2013, but may be funded in the future. Another significant issue is the cost of vehicle 

replacement. A fund source for recapitalizing vehicles at Yosemite NP has not been 

identified and will require approximately $12.8 million in 2017 for 18 buses. 

Recapitalization needs for other systems will likely be met or covered through service 

contracts, vehicle leasing, and to a lesser extent, by FLTP Category III funding for smaller 

systems such as those at PINN and EUON. 

Mobility, Access & Connectivity

Maintaining access over aging bridges on primary park roadways will pose a financial 

challenge for PWR, but within the 20-year planning horizon should be manageable 

primarily through repair and preservation treatments to existing structures. A number of 

expensive bridge replacements along main park roadways are inevitable beyond 2035. 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 40 

Improved connections to gateway communities will be possible where cost-effective 

solutions are found, but the focus will need to remain on basic access on park roadways. 

Rehabilitation projects will continue to make progress in meeting universal access goals for 

transit stops, parking areas, sidewalks and other key elements of the transportation 

network. 

Visitor experience

In some locations visitor experience will continue to suffer, from traffic congestion and 

poor roadway and parking conditions. Options for relieving congestion and lack of 

parking capacity are limited in some cases by the need to preserve a quality visitor 

experience at destinations beyond the parking lot, such as front-country trails, visitor 

centers and overlooks. Progress is expected, however, on improving visitor and employee 

safety on park roadways as the ability to analyze problems and implement cost-efficient 

solutions improves. 

Resource Protection and Enhancement

Historic roadways will continue to age and reach their end of practical service-life. 

Increased costs for rehabilitating these facilities in accordance with the Secretary’s 

Standards for Historic Preservation will continue to place financial stress on transportation 

programs, but progress will be made in improving these roadways for modern traffic 

demands. 

Natural resource protection goals will advance by incorporating best management 

practices for air and water quality. Revegetation and weed-control efforts will continue to 

ensure that transportation projects have a positive effect on local habitats, but will likely 

struggle with increased weed proliferation that affects roadways across the nation. 

Enhancement of fish and aquatic organism habitats will progress as they are incorporated 

into roadway rehabilitation projects through the use of properly designed stream 

crossings. 

Sustainable Operations

Adoption of more rigorous project selection and screening tools, such as the Capital 

Investment Strategy, will help PWR identify its most important transportation assets and 

commit spending to where it will be most effective. It will also reduce total life cycle costs 

for these high priority assets, by ensuring that basic levels of annual maintenance are 

performed. Lower priority assets will be less likely to be rehabilitated and may be 

removed from service. Increasingly, programs such as FLTP will need to incorporate facility 

removal into their multi-year programs. Additionally, Intelligent Transportation Systems 

will play an increasing role in optimizing use of existing infrastructure without expanding 

the developed footprint. 

Total Transportation Needs for the Pacific West Region 

Total transportation needs for the Pacific West Region are projected by combining 

existing, unmet and future needs for all transportation assets. Total needs were then 

compared to projected financial resources to identify the funding gap. The sizeable gap 

represents a significant challenge in operating and maintaining transportation at an 

acceptable level in PWR parks. 

Existing needs have been calculated based on current prioritized project lists in the Federal 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 41 

Lands Transportation Program (FLTP), repair recommendations from the Highway 

Pavement Management Application (HPMA), estimated emergency repair needs, the NPS 

Bridge Management System, the Operations and Maintenance Requirements Cost Model 

from the NLRTP, Alternative Transportation System pro forma, and the Pacific West Region 

Safety and Congestion Management programs. Future needs were calculated by 

extending current needs to 2035 at the 2.1% inflation rate. Historic obligations have been 

normalized to 2012 dollars. 

PWR Needs, 2015-2035 

The total annual estimated need for the PWR will grow from $122 million in 2015 to $194 

million in 2035. The growth in need results primarily from the compound effects of 

inflation and the lack of adequate funding to reverse the declining trend in the overall 

condition of roadways and bridges. 

Outputs from the Highway Pavement Management Application (HPMA) were generated 

to determine the most cost-effective treatments for PWR roads and parking areas. Since 

pavement treatments are cyclic in nature, the needs assessment extends the costs of 

pavement treatments to 2035 based on HPMA recommended cycles, adding inflation costs. 

Roadway pavement maintenance, rehabilitation and reconstruction activities dominate 

future transportation needs in the region. 

Operation and Maintenance Needs 

The Operations and Maintenance needs for the four primary PWR transportation asset 

types are indicated below in Table 8. Marinas and waterfront assets were generally not 

included in these totals because they are not, with minor exceptions, part of the public 

access transportation portfolio under NPS management. Totals include needs for all paved 

and unpaved roads and parking areas in the inventory. 

 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 42 

Table 8: Operations and Maintenance Needs in 2015 

Major Project Needs 

Table 9 identifies major project needs in PWR, as recorded in the current FLTP Category I 

and Category III priority lists, the FLREA 5-year program and detailed management plans 

such as the Yosemite Merced River and Tuolumne River Plans. The list does not include 

congestion or safety management projects. PWR will continue to take project submissions 

in those sub-categories in the annual Servicewide Comprehensive Call. 

 

Asset Code Asset Type Operations Preventive Recurring* Total

1100 Roads $10,352,681 $7,975,508 Not incl. $18,328,189

1300 Parking $2,280,300 $351,023 Not incl. $2,631,323

1700 Bridges $579,388 $226,137 Not incl. $805,525

1800 Tunnels $551,597 $343,543 Not incl. $895,140

Total $13,763,966 $8,896,211 $22,660,177

Planned Spending

Asset Code Asset Type Operations Preventive Recurring* Total

1100 Roads $3,983,658 $2,557,331 Not incl. $6,540,989

1300 Parking $607,168 $99,046 Not incl. $706,214

1700 Bridges $154,347 $77,510 Not incl. $231,857

1800 Tunnels $336,883 $127,986 Not incl. $464,869

Total $5,082,056 $2,861,873 $7,943,929

Gap between Planned & Required O&M by Asset Type

Asset Code Asset Type Planned Required Difference % Req't Met

1100 Roads $6,540,989 $18,328,189 ($11,787,200) 36%

1300 Parking $706,214 $2,631,323 ($1,925,109) 27%

1700 Bridges $231,857 $805,525 ($573,668) 29%

1800 Tunnels $464,869 $895,140 ($430,271) 52%

Total $7,943,929 $22,660,177 ($14,716,248) 35%

Current Requirements

Source:  (from 2014 PAMP Re‐Optimizer; reflects Effective Requirement which equals Raw Requirement minus Supplemental Funding)  

*Recurring Maintenance Needs are not included here because they have been modeled in more detail by FHWA bridge and pavement

preservation engineers (see Bridge and Pavement Preservation Program sections for needs estimates).

* Recurring Maintenance Needs are not included here because they have been modeled in more detail by FHWA bridge and pavement

preservation engineers (see Bridge and Pavement Preservation Program sections for needs estimates).
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 43 

Table 9: Significant PWR Projects for NPS Facilities

Park Description Estimated 

Cost 

CHIS Replace Dilapidated Pier at Scorpion Anchorage at Santa Cruz Island $3,000,000 

CRLA Restore Safe Width of East Rim Drive, North Junction to Cleetwood $5,100,000 

CRLA Restore Safe Width of West Rim Drive $8,500,000 

CRLA Rehabilitate Pinnacles Road $9,700,000

CRLA Rehabilitate East Rim Drive (Route 13), MP 4.5 to MP 12.0 (Phase I of II) $11,400,000

CRLA Rehabilitate East Rim Drive, MP 12.0 to MP 23.1 (Phase II of II) $15,100,000

CRLA Rehabilitate 9.6 miles of Crater Lake Highway (Route 011) $15,800,000

DEVA Rehabilitate Southern Half of Artist Drive Road (4.4 miles) $1,800,000

DEVA Rehabilitate Dante's View Road $5,700,000

DEVA Rehabilitate Beatty Cutoff Road (Route 012) from MP 0.0 to MP 10.0 $8,000,000

DEVA Rehabilitate Badwater Road (Route 015) from MP 13.0 to MP 29.0 $11,100,000

DEVA Rehabilitate Emigrant Canyon Road A $12,400,000

DEVA Rehabilitate Emigrant Canyon Road B $12,400,000

DEVA Rehabilitate Badwater Road (Route 015) from MP 0.0 to MP 13.0 $13,900,000

DEVA Rehabilitate Jubilee Pass Road (Route 013) from MP 0.0 to MP 21.0 $15,100,000

DEVA Reconstruct 8 Miles of Lower Wildrose Road (Route 14, MP 17.0 to MP 24.9) $18,100,000

GOGA Rehabilitate Entry Road, North and Central Parking Areas, Stinson Beach $2,100,000

GRBA Reconstruct 4 of 12 miles - Wheeler Park Scenic Drive (Route 100, MP 0 to 

MP 11.75) $8,600,000

GRBA Pave 6 miles of Baker Creek Road $16,500,000

HALE Rehabilitate 4 Miles of Main Park Road $6,900,000 

HAVO Reconstruction/Rehabilitation of Crater Rim Drive from Main Park Entrance 

to Devastation Trail Parking (Route 10, MP 7.6 to MP 10.7) $5,300,000

HAVO Rehabilitate Crater Rim Drive from Entrance to Devastation Trail Parking 

Lot, MP 2.8 to MP 7.6 $6,500,000

LABE Rehabilitate and Resurface Main Park Road, Spur Roads and Parking Areas 

(Northern Half of Park) $8,500,000

LABE Rehabilitate and Resurface Main Park Road, Spur Roads and Parking Areas 

(Southern Half of Park) $10,800,000

LAKE Rehabilitate Cottonwood Cove Access Road $11,800,000

LAKE Rehabilitate Temple Bar Access Road Phase I - MP 9.3 to MP 17.5 $13,300,000

LAKE Rehabilitate Temple Bar Access Road Phase II - MP 0.0 to MP 9.3 $13,300,000

LAKE Reconstruct Katherine Access Road $13,800,000 

LARO Rehabilitate Spring Canyon Road and Parking Area $4,100,000

MOJA Reconstruct Poorly Aligned Park Road Segments, Phase II (Morningstar Mine 

Road & Various Intersections) $7,700,000

MOJA Rehabilitate Kelso Cima Road (Route 11, MP 0 to MP 18.96) $15,000,000
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 44 

Park Description Estimated 

Cost 

MORA Replace/Lengthen Kautz Creek Bridge to Protect Structural Integrity During 

Flood Events $3,800,000

MORA Rehabilitate Stevens Canyon Road, MP 9.5 to MP 14.0 $6,100,000

MORA Repair Fryingpan Creek Bridge (Sunrise Road) $3,900,000

MORA Rehabilitate Sunrise Road MP 5.3 to MP 10.3 (Phase 2) $6,100,000

MORA Rehabilitate Stevens Canyon Road (Route 013) MP 5.0 to MP 9.5 $7,900,000

MORA Rehabilitate SR 123, Southeast Boundary to Panther Creek (5 miles) $8,200,000

MORA Rehabilitate Sunrise Road MP 0.00 to MP 5.3 (Phase I) $9,200,000

MORA Rehabilitate Mather Memorial Parkway (SR 410) - Phase II (Cayuse Pass to 

MP 60) $10,400,000 

MORA Rehabilitate 12 Miles of Nisqually-Paradise Road, Longmire to Paradise $16,000,000 

MUWO Construct Access Improvements at Parking and Transit Staging Area Phase I $1,700,000 

NOCA Pave Five Miles of Stehekin Valley Road $8,500,000 

OLYM Rehabilitate Route 102, Camp David Jr. Road $2,100,000

OLYM Replace Culvert with Bridge at July Creek on Route 104, Quinault North 

Shore Road $2,200,000

OLYM Replace Culvert with Bridge at East Twin Creek on Route 107, Hoh Entrance 

Road $2,200,000

OLYM Replace Finley Creek Temporary Bridge $3,100,000

OLYM Rehabilitate Route 116 Lyre River Road and Route 101, East Beach Road $4,800,000

OLYM Rehabilitate Hoh Entrance Road $8,500,000

OLYM Rehabilitate Route 104, Quinault North Shore Road $10,200,000

OLYM Rehabilitate Elwha Valley Road $13,000,000 

OLYM Rehabilitate Route 103, Sol Duc Valley Road $13,400,000

OLYM Rehabilitate Lake Crescent Road (US Hwy 101) $18,200,000 

PORE Rehabilitate Mt Vision Road $2,500,000

PORE Rehabilitate Lighthouse and Chimney Rock Roads $3,700,000 

SEKI Rehabilitate and Resurface 8.7 mi of KICA Generals Hwy from Pythian Camp 

to 1 mi south of the Wye $7,300,000

SEKI Rehabilitate and Resurface 8.7 miles of the Generals Hwy Little Baldy North 

to Pythian Camp Road $8,200,000 

SEKI Rehabilitate 1.0 Miles of Generals Highway, Deer Ridge to Eleven Range $10,000,000 

YOSE Rehabilitate and Realign Roads and Parking at South Entrance $1,500,000 

YOSE Rehabilitate and Realign Roads and Parking surrounding South Entrance 

Kiosks $1,600,000

YOSE Improve 8 Existing Shuttle Bus Stops at Yosemite National Park $2,100,000 

YOSE Realign Northside Drive at Yosemite Valley Day-Use Parking Area ("Camp 

6") $2,500,000 

YOSE Rehabilitate Wawona Road from MP 0.0 to MP 2.6 $3,100,000 

YOSE Stabilization Spot Repairs on the Big Oak Flat Road (MP 0.00 to MP 7.30) $4,300,000

YOSE Rehabilitate Remainder of Yosemite Valley Loop Road and El Portal Road 

(Big Oak Flat to Pohono Bridge) $7,100,000 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 45 

Park Description Estimated 

Cost 

YOSE Rehabilitate Mariposa Grove and Tram Road $8,000,000 

YOSE Rehabilitate Tioga Road, Phase 3 of 6, MP 15.2 to MP 23.0 $14,800,000

YOSE Rehabilitate Glacier Point Road, Badger Pass to Glacier Point (10.5 Miles) $15,700,000

YOSE Reconstruct Valley Day-Use Parking Area for 750 Vehicles $4,600,000

YOSE Construct West of Lodge Parking Area for 300 Vehicles $2,200,000

YOSE Reconstruct Village Short-term Parking Area for 250 Vehicles $2,100,000

YOSE Construct 189 Parking Spaces West of Curry Village $700,000

YOSE 

Eliminate Off-road Parking and Relocate to TM Visitor Center; Expand 

Parking at Lembert Dome, Store, Stables Area, Pothole Dome and 

Wilderness Center 

$5,600,000

YOSE Construct 300 Parking Spaces at El Portal Abbieville/Trailer Village $2,300,000

YOSE Construct 415 parking spaces at Curry Orchard Parking Lot $2,700,000

Pavement Maintenance Needs 

Maintaining paved roadways represents the largest component of the overall 

transportation programming need. Because of its relative size, a specific analysis of need 

was prepared for this plan. Pavement condition is commonly expressed using Pavement 

Condition Rating (PCR), which is a numerical score based on distress factors measured by 

the Road Inventory Program, which uses a data collection vehicle and manual rating 

methods. These factors include amount of patching, cracking, wheel-path rutting and 

roughness of ride. Condition ratings are as follows: 

POOR (<=60), FAIR (61 - 84), GOOD (85 - 94), EXCELLENT (95 - 100) 

PWR has approximately $24 million (net construction) annually available for 3R-type 

roadway rehabilitation and another $10 million annually for pavement preservation (of 

which $6 million annually comes from the Regular Cyclic Maintenance program). Current 

funding is not sufficient to reach PWR’s modest target of PCR 82: if purchasing power 

remains constant over the 20-year planning horizon, overall pavement condition and 

deferred maintenance (DM) total will stay relatively constant, at 72 PCR and $1.08 billion 

respectively. With the assumed 2.1% annual inflation, this DM can be expected to grow to 

$1.63 billion by 2035. While the overall PCR target PWR has set is 82, higher PCR targets 

are set for the highest priority assets (functional class one and two roads), and lower PCR 

targets for less critical assets such as roadway functional classes three through eight and 

parking areas. 

 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 46 

Table 10

PWR Pavement Condition Ratings (PCR) and 2035 Targets 

Source: HPMA Analysis for PWR Long Range Transportation Plan, Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division, 2014 

The annual needs for 3R pavement rehabilitation to reach the modest PCR targets 

indicated above are shown in figure 12. Without pavement preservation treatments, 

rehabilitation needs increase significantly in the out years due to shortened service life of 

existing pavements. The annual shortfall under scenarios with and without pavement 

preservation begins at $16 million in 2015, and grows to more than $24 million and $91 

million respectively by 2035. 

Figure 12 

3R Roadway Rehabilitation with and without Pavement Preservation 

PWR Annual Funding Needs vs. Available Budget 

Forecast available budget is shown in orange. The blue line indicates the estimate of need to reach the PCR 

targets, assuming pavement preservation efforts continue at the current comprehensive level. The red line 

indicates the need to reach the same PCR targets, but without investing in pavement preservation efforts. 

Source: HPMA Analysis for PWR Long Range Transportation Plan, Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division, 2014 

Roads 1,2 Roads 3,8

Roads

4,5,6

Parking

1,2

Parking

Other

Public

Parking 3‐

8 and non

Public

All

1,231 173 78 18 156 108 1,764

78.2 55.2 56.0 73.1 72.0 62.8 73.4

49% 19% 18% 27% 21% 11% 40

36% 31% 32% 53% 55% 46% 38

15% 50% 50% 20% 24% 43% 22

PCR Targets 85 75 75 80 80 70 82.2

Route Miles

Current PCR

% Good Condition

% Fair Condition

% Poor Condition

$0

$20,000,000

$40,000,000

$60,000,000

$80,000,000

$100,000,000

$120,000,000

$140,000,000

$160,000,000

$180,000,000

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Available Budget

Funding Need for 3R with

Pave Pres

Funding Need with 3R Only
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 47 

Other Component Renewal/Rehabilitation Needs 

PWR historically spends an annual average of $56 million on Component Renewal/ 

Recapitalization for transportation assets. This figure includes costs for planning, design 

and construction administration. Approximately $33 million in funding for these projects 

comes from the FLTP, and $23 million from Title 54 NPS programs and the former PLHD 

and TRIP programs. NPS funds are used to rehabilitate the full range of transportation 

assets, from minor drainage structures and roadside signs to marine piers, bridges and 

large parking lots. 

Transit System Needs 

Figure 13 includes all costs necessary to operate the two transit systems owned and 

operated by the NPS. Future costs for capital and operational expenses were extrapolated 

from current pro forma financial statements, which indicate that expenses are generally 

covered by a combination of Recreation Fee, Transportation Fee, and Operational Base 

funding. Category III funds are programmed for replacement of vehicles for the small NPS 

owned and operated systems at EUON and PINN. Capital costs include fleet replacement 

on the schedule indicated in the pro formas. Additionally, one cycle of fleet replacement 

is assumed for each system with NPS owned vehicles, and is included in the future costs as 

an annualized amount. Costs beyond 2012 were forecast using the 2.1% annual inflation 

rate. 

Figure 13 Annualized Transit System Capital and Operations Needs 

(PINN and EUON only) 

Source: Financial Pro Forma Models, NPS, 2013

Other Transit System Needs - For some other PWR systems significant recapitalization 

needs remain unaddressed in years beyond the pro forma projection horizons. In the past, 

capital needs have been met with a combination of FLTP Category III funds and grant 

awards through the Federal Transit Administration Transit in Parks Program (TRIP). TRIP 

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

$160,000

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Capital

Operations
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 48 

has since been discontinued, and the Category III funds were generally intended as onetime investments to get systems established. Ongoing and future costs for capital and 

operational expenses are expected to be covered by a combination of funding sources, 

including Recreation Fee, Transportation Fee and ONPS. Revenues and expenditures are 

summarized in each park’s pro forma financial assessments. 

Planning

The need for making wise investments in transportation services and infrastructure will 

grow more acute as visitation pressure at key park destinations continues to increase. 

From 2006 to 2012 the now-discontinued Transit in Parks Program (TRIP) distributed over 

$6 million in planning grants to PWR parks. Given the pressing need for spending limited 

funds on the deferred maintenance backlog, it will be difficult to conduct comparable 

levels of planning activity without a new funding source. 

 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 49 

Table 11: PWR Projected Annual Transportation Needs, Funding and Gaps

Year 2015

Work Type Need Projected Funding Gap

Maintenance (Annual and Cyclic)

Operational Base (incl. Prevent. Maint.) $22,660,177 $7,943,929 ($14,716,248)

RCM and FLTP for Pavement Pres. $10,643,000 $10,643,000 $0

Component Renewal/Recapitalization

3R Roadway Rehabilitation (Pavement) $48,732,000 $32,790,800 ($15,941,200)

Other Transportation Asset Rehabilitation $16,000,000 $10,665,000 ($5,335,000)

Bridge Preservation $3,885,000 $3,885,000 $0

Transit Recapitalization $1,036,000 $30,000 ($1,006,000)

Capital Improvement/New Construction

4R Reconstruction and Realignment* $11,000,000 $9,439,770 ($1,560,230)

Safety Program $2,129,000 $2,129,000 $0

Congestion Management $798,000 $798,000 $0

Intelligent Transportation Systems $319,000 $319,000 $0

Transit Operations $2,870,933 $1,280,000 ($1,590,933)

Planning $2,235,098 $1,470,000 ($765,098)

TOTAL    $122,308,208 $81,393,499 ($40,914,709)

Year 2025

Work Type Need Projected Funding Gap

Maintenance (Annual and Cyclic)

Operational Base (incl. Prevent. Maint.) $27,895,000 $9,779,000 ($18,116,000)

RCM and FLTP for Pavement Pres. $13,102,000 $13,102,000 $0

Component Renewal/Recapitalization

3R Roadway Rehabilitation (Pavement) $69,375,000 $41,805,186 ($27,569,814)

Other Transportation Asset Rehabilitation $19,695,971 $13,128,596 ($6,567,375)

Bridge Preservation $4,782,000 $4,782,000 $0

Transit Recapitalization $1,276,000 $36,930 ($1,239,070)

Capital Improvement/New Construction

4R Reconstruction and Realignment* $9,000,000 $8,000,000 ($1,000,000)

Safety Program $2,620,000 $2,620,000 $0

Congestion Management $983,000 $983,000 $0

Intelligent Transportation Systems $393,000 $393,000 $0

Transit Operations $3,534,113 $1,575,678 ($1,958,436)

Planning $2,751,401 $1,809,567 ($941,834)

TOTAL    $155,407,486 $98,014,957 ($57,392,529)

Year 2035

Work Type Need Projected Funding Gap

Maintenance (Annual and Cyclic)

Operational Base (incl. Prevent. Maint.) $36,547,000 $12,038,000 ($24,509,000)

RCM and FLTP for Pavement Pres. $16,128,000 $16,128,000 $0

Component Renewal/Recapitalization

3R Roadway Rehabilitation (Pavement) $88,053,000 $64,789,534 ($23,263,466)

Other Transportation Asset Rehabilitation $24,245,705 $16,161,278 ($8,084,427)

Bridge Preservation $5,887,000 $5,887,000 $0

Transit Recapitalization $1,570,000 $45,461 ($1,524,539)

Capital Improvement/New Construction

4R Reconstruction and Realignment* $9,000,000 $8,000,000 ($1,000,000)

Safety Program $3,226,000 $3,226,000 $0

Congestion Management $1,210,000 $1,210,000 $0

Intelligent Transportation Systems $484,000 $484,000 $0

Transit Operations $4,350,487 $1,939,656 ($2,410,831)

Planning $3,386,970 $2,227,574 ($1,159,396)

TOTAL    $194,088,163 $132,136,503 ($61,951,659)
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 50 

Sources for Table 11: Operational Base (incl. Prevent. Maint.) was derived from calculations based off the 2014 

PAMP Re-Optimizer - see table in Operations and Maintenance discussion. RCM and FLTP for Pavement Pres. 

need is calculated on current program spending amounts, which meet the need, inflated at 2.1% annually. 3R 

Roadway Rehabilitation (Pavement) need was derived by FHWA, using the HPMA application, using pavement 

condition targets indicated in Table 9. Non-pavement asset rehabilitation has historically accounted for 

approximately 35% of roadway rehabilitation costs, and has been factored into the 3R need calculations (see 

Pavement Preservation program section for details). Other Transportation Asset Rehabilitation need includes 

transit staging areas, bus shelters, docks and piers, and certain roadway appurtenances that need 

rehabilitation on cycles outside of normal roadway rehabilitation (large culverts, guard walls, etc.). Bridge 

Preservation need was derived by FHWA, using the Pontis application (see Bridge Preservation section for 

details). Transit Recapitalization need has been projected forward from the seven-year spending average, with 

inflation. 4R Reconstruction and Realignment need is based on the seven-year average spending history, and 

modified downward in future years to reflect anticipated gains made in bringing the inventory up to modern 

design standards. The needs for the Safety Program, Congestion Management Program and Intelligent 

Transportation Systems are based on the seven-year spending history, projected forward and adjusted for 

inflation. Transit Operations needs are based on financial pro forma for the NPS operated systems. 

Unmet Needs: The Gap between Funding and Costs 

By 2035 the gap between projected annual transportation funding ($132 million) and 

estimated annual needs ($194 million) for the PWR will be $62 million (see Table 11). This 

figure is largely the result of deferring major rehabilitation and reconstruction needs, 

which leads to a growing backlog of deferred maintenance and an increasing need for 

infrastructure investment declining conditions. Shortfalls in funding for regular 

maintenance for activities such as culvert cleaning, ditch pulling and mowing also lead to 

premature deterioration and increased storm damage to roadways and parking areas. 

Implementation of the Capital Investment Strategy will help lengthen the service life for 

transportation assets that are identified as high priorities and keep annual maintenance 

requirements in balance by matching the core asset portfolio to the amount of operational 

funds available. Lower priority assets will deteriorate and eventually have to be removed 

from service. Program funds will be needed for projects to remove decrepit facilities that 

have negative effects on resources, scenery or the visitor experience. 

Other Unmet Needs 

Roadway rehabilitation is the largest element of the transportation program that is 

projected to be underfunded. However, there are other important future needs that 

won’t be fully met, which include efforts to address climate change impacts to facilities; 

implementing environmentally beneficial facility improvements such as providing for 

better fish passage and reducing wildlife-vehicle collisions; providing maintenance for 

future as yet un-built capital projects; providing for transit recapitalization costs; adopting 

innovative communication technologies to relieve transportation congestion problems; 

providing for accessibility to comply with the Architectural Barriers Act standards; 

rehabilitating aging and dilapidated roadway features on historic roads and bridges; and 

removal of facilities that are decommissioned due to lack of funding for operation and 

regular maintenance. 

 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 51 

Maintaining Access: 2015 to 2035 

This plan offers a fiscally constrained strategy aimed at maintaining key visitor access to 

essential experiences in PWR parks. The investment strategy focuses on high priority assets 

for rehabilitation and preservation, and is aligned with the Capital Investment Strategy for 

reinvesting in assets that park-level managers have committed adequate operational and 

annual maintenance dollars. 

Key findings and conclusions 

 Total funding for transportation is currently limited to $81.4 million annually, and is 

predicted to grow in step with inflation at 2.1% annually, resulting in no net 

change in purchasing power. 

 The gap between funding and identified need will grow mainly as a result of steady 

increases in deferred maintenance; the increase in deferred maintenance will be the 

result of no increase in PWR’s purchasing capacity to meet rehabilitation and 

regular maintenance needs. 

 While pavement preservation investments will maximize service life of pavements, 

inevitable aging and deterioration will outpace the agency’s financial capacity to 

rehabilitate the roadways that need it. Roadway conditions will decline, leading to 

rough surfaces, decreased visitor enjoyment, increased annual maintenance needs 

and unsafe driving conditions. 

 Preservation treatments will be employed to maximize the service life of bridges, 

but replacements are expected to come due at or near the end of this planning 

period in 2035. PWR will then face significant financial challenges in replacing 

numerous worn out structures. 

 The costs for transit operations and vehicle recapitalization may pose a challenge 

for managers at some parks, as significant recapitalization needs remain 

unaddressed in years beyond the current pro forma projection horizons. 

Strategies for implementation: 

 Funding priority will remain on maintenance of functional class one and two 

roadways and associated parking areas. 

 Recapitalization will be focused on assets in Capital Investment Strategy (CIS) 

optimizer bands one and two. 

 Prioritization for funding will go to projects that serve visitor areas and activities 

that are closely linked to the park’s purpose and can’t be substituted at another 

location within the park. 

 Capital investments/new construction will be limited in order to conserve funds for 

repairs to existing facilities. 

 Roads, parking areas and transit systems may need to be removed or downsized in 

order to bring inventory in line with budgets. Parks will align transportation assets 

with park purpose, as defined in establishing legislation, foundation documents, 

general management plans, and unit level long range transportation plans, if 

needed. Transportation program funds will be made available for a program of 

cost-efficient removals of low benefit/high cost assets. 

 In regard to global climate change, careful consideration and life-cycle cost analysis 

must be made before major reinvestment in transportation facilities, especially 

those that are vulnerable to increasingly severe or frequent storm damage or sea-
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 52 

level rise. 

 The transportation safety management program will be adapted and improved as 

the Servicewide crash data collection and reporting capabilities are re-established. 

The process is expected to be completed by the end of 2015. Based on information 

provided by the new reporting system, it may be appropriate to increase near-term 

investment in addressing problem areas. 

 The pavement preservation program funding levels (adjusted for inflation), will 

generally be adequate to meet system needs. Pavements that are in good enough 

condition to benefit from the program will be treated. 

 The regional bridge preservation program will be enhanced to ensure that bridges 

on functional class one, two and three roadways remain at or above a Health Index 

of 92 in order to maximize the service life of these facilities. 

 To ensure the sustainability of alternative transportation systems additional 

funding sources to cover transit operations and recapitalization costs will be 

pursued. Additional funding sources may include fare box receipts, parking fees, 

new grants and partnerships. Parks may seek approval for Transportation Fee 

increases through the Region and WASO program offices. 

 Planning efforts will focus on reducing transportation congestion, improving visitor 

experience, and achieving financial sustainability. 

Hope for the future: 

If future transportation funding levels exceed expectations, PWR should be well poised to 

take advantage of opportunities to improve visitor access and the quality of the visitor 

experience. This will require some ongoing planning efforts, including periodic updates to 

this plan and other park unit-level plans. Accurate inventory and condition assessments of 

the entire transportation infrastructure portfolio will remain critically important. Should 

there be funding increases above those projected in this document, PWR parks will begin 

to address the unmet needs identified above. Key improvements that could be made 

include: 

 Improve the condition of important transportation facilities, including roadways, 

parking lots and transit staging areas. The modest pavement condition targets 

identified in this plan could be raised, allowing for smoother rides, less ongoing 

maintenance disruption and expense, and a safer environment for motorists, 

cyclists and pedestrians. 

 Expand the number of existing roads and other transportation facilities to be 

included in the highest priority band of assets identified in park asset management 

plans (PAMPs), and consistent with the CIS. More facilities will receive regular, on 

time maintenance and care, so that NPS can minimize ownership costs for a larger 

proportion of its assets. 

 Expand rehabilitation and other work requiring recapitalization to the larger set of 

assets in the high priority bands in revised PAMPs. More roads, parking areas, and 

transit facilities would qualify for rehabilitation funding, and PWR parks would 

make better progress in reducing the deferred maintenance backlog. 

 Alternative modes of travel such as transit service and multi-use pathways, could be 

expanded and improved to better connect to surrounding communities, reduce 

congestion on roadways, and improve visitor experience. Recapitalization needs 

for existing transit systems (e.g. replacement of buses) would be funded. A 

reduction in fees and transit fares would encourage more visitors to use park 

transit services. Transit operations that depend on short-term funding sources such 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 53 

as grants or cooperative agreements could be made more stable and efficient. 

 Other improvements could be made such as providing for better fish passage under 

roadways and reducing wildlife-vehicle collisions; expanding the use of innovative 

communication technologies to relieve transportation congestion problems; 

providing for better accessibility to comply with the Architectural Barriers Act

standards; and rehabilitating aging and dilapidated roadway features on historic 

roads and bridges. 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 54 

 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 55 

Glossary of Selected Acronyms and Terms 

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, commonly referred to as the 

"stimulus package." The Recovery Act was intended to create and save jobs, as well 

as spur economic activity and invest in long-term growth. Much of this activity was 

achieved through funding for federal contracts. The total ARRA expenditure 

estimate is $840 billion. 

ATP Alternative Transportation Program, part of the Federal Lands Transportation 

Program (FLTP). 

BIP Bridge Inspection Program. The Bridge Inspection Team is responsible for the safety 

inspection and structural rating of approximately 1,400 NPS structures in accordance 

with the National Bridge Inspection Standards. The team also manages the NPS 

structures inventory and collects, maintains, and evaluates data, providing the FLH 

and NPS planners with an annual list of structure rehabilitation and repair priorities. 

Category I FLTP category of funding for NPS roads and bridges (see 3R and 4R sub-categories 

below). 

Category II FLTP category of funding for NPS parkways (there are no parkways in PWR). 

Category III FLTP category of funding for NPS alternative transportation systems. Category III is 

intended to provide for alternative modes of travel in national parks, including 

transit, marine, bicycle, and pedestrian. 

CFLHD Central Federal Lands Highway Division within FHWA. CFLHD operates as part of 

the FLTP, serving the needs of all central states (within PWR these include CA, NV, 

HI, and the Pacific Islands). CFLHD actively administers the surveying, designing and 

constructing of park roads and other roads on Federal lands. 

CIS Capital Investment Strategy. The CIS is a servicewide initiative that relies upon 

universal life-cycle management principles to address inherent threats to the 

financial sustainability of NPS’s most valued assets. It is a focus of the FY 2015 

Servicewide Consolidated Budget Call for both the Line Item Construction and 

Repair/Rehabilitation programs, and is expected to be expanded to other facility 

programs like FLTP in the near future. CIS provides park managers with the 

necessary tools to identify and commit to long-term life-cycle maintenance 

strategies that are consistent with budgetary constraints and resource limitations, 

while allowing discretionary authority to prioritize assets based on their intrinsic 

value to their respective park units. 

CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program. The CMAQ program 

was implemented to support surface transportation projects and other related 

efforts that contribute air quality improvements and provide congestion relief, and 

is jointly administered by FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The 

CMAQ program provides funding to areas in nonattainment or maintenance for 

ozone, carbon monoxide, and/or particulate matter. MAP-21 provides just over $2.2 

billion in CMAQ funding for transportation-environmental projects for each year of 

the authorization-2013 and 2014. 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 56 

CRV Current Replacement Value. The actual cost of replacing the facilities, not the book 

value. The total expenditure in current dollars required to replace a facility to meet 

current acceptable standards of construction and comply with regulatory 

requirements. 

DSC Denver Service Center. The National Park Service's centralized planning, design, and 

construction project management office. 

EFLHD Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division within FHWA. EFLHD operates as part of 

the FLTP, serving the transportation engineering needs of Federal Land 

Management agencies in the states east of the Mississippi River. EFLHD actively 

administers the surveying, designing, and constructing NPS roads and other Federal 

Lands roads. In addition, EFLHD provides traffic monitoring services, the road 

inventory program, asset management, pavement management systems, and bridge 

inspection services throughout the United States and Territories. 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency. 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration. 

FLAP Federal Lands Access Program. FLAP was created by MAP-21 to improve access to 

federal lands. The program is directed towards public highways, roads, bridges, trails 

and transit systems that are under State, county, town, township, tribal, municipal, 

or local government jurisdiction or maintenance and provide access to federal lands. 

FLHP Federal Lands Highway Program. The now-discontinued program for NPS 

transportation funding has been replaced by FLTP. 

FLTP Federal Lands Transportation Program. FLTP provides funds to the following 

agencies for transportation infrastructure investment: the National Park Service, the 

Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management and 

the Corps of Engineers. MAP-21 replaced the Park Roads and Parkways Program 

with FLTP. 

4R Resurfacing, Restoration, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of roadways. This work 

consists of altering the geometry of an existing roadway, intersection, or bridge. 

Widening lanes and modifying the horizontal and vertical alignment of the road 

bench are typical of 4R work. Category 4R projects also include work such as the 

replacement of large bridges (more than $1.5 million); the relocation of roads; and 

construction of new roads, bridges, parking areas or parallel bicycle paths. These 

projects involve significantly higher costs per mile due to work required outside the 

existing roadway bench. 

FTA Federal Transit Administration. Administers various transit grant programs, 

including the now discontinued Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Program, a 

significant funding source for NPS transit projects during SAFETEA-LU. 

HI Health Index for bridges. The health index is a single number indicator of the 

structural health of the bridge. This indicator is expressed as a percentage value 

from 0 percent to 100 percent, corresponding to the worst and best possible 

conditions, respectively. 

HPMA Highway Pavement Management Application. Pavement management software 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 57 

contracted for use by EFLHD. This software is a customized version of Stantec 

Consulting’s proprietary software, Highway Pavement Management Application 

(HPMA). HPMA uses pavement condition data (collected by the EFLHD Roadway 

Inventory Program), to model future pavement conditions and recommend timely 

treatments for maintenance and rehabilitation. 

ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems. The application of advanced information and 

communications technology to surface transportation in order to achieve enhanced 

safety and mobility while reducing the environmental impact of transportation. 

LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan. 

MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (P.L. 112-141), the current 

highway funding authorization. MAP-21 was signed into law by President Obama 

on July 6, 2012 and has been extended to July 31, 2015. Funding surface 

transportation programs at over $105 billion for fiscal years (FY) 2013 and 2014, 

MAP-21 is the first long-term highway authorization enacted since 2005. 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The Clean Air Act, which was last amended 

in 1990, requires EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards for pollutants 

considered harmful to public health and the environment. EPA has set National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for six principal pollutants, which are called "criteria" 

pollutants: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particle pollution and 

sulfur dioxide. 

ONPS Operation of the National Park Service. This is the funding program for base 

operations of the agency. 

PCR Pavement Condition Rating. A number of distress factors comprise PCR, including 

type of cracking, amount of cracking, patches, potholes, rutting and roughness. 

PFMD Park Facility Management Division of WASO. 

PLHD Public Lands Highway Discretionary program, now discontinued. 

PRP Park Roads and Parkways Program, part of FLHP, now discontinued. 

PWR Pacific West Region of the National Park Service. 

RCM Regular Cyclic Maintenance program within NPS that funds regularly scheduled 

recurring maintenance and component renewal work activities that help to insure 

that assets can meet their intended design life. 

RIP Road Inventory Program. Takes inventory and assesses condition of paved roadway 

and parking area assets for NPS. 

TAR Traffic Accident Reporter. Database under development by WASO-PFMD to provide 

a single, reportable database for storing and querying motor vehicle crash records 

on NPS roads. 

TCFO Total Cost of Facility Ownership, taking into account all costs of acquiring, owning, 

and disposing of a building, roadway or other type of facility. 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 58 

3R Resurfacing, Restoration and Rehabilitation of roadways. This work is undertaken 

to extend the service life of roads and enhance safety. Typically, this work occurs 

entirely in the roadway bench. Occasionally, a 3R project can occur outside the 

bench for repair work for drainage structures, existing retaining walls, slope failures, 

and bridges. No more than 5% of project costs should be allocated to work outside 

the roadway bench without it being designated as 4R work, which has different 

standards for funding approval. 

TRIP Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Program, previously known as the Alternative 

Transportation in the Parks and Public Lands Program, now discontinued. 

VERP Visitor Experience and Resource Protection. The framework developed by NPS to 

analyze and manage visitor carrying capacity in national parks. VERP seeks to 

determine the appropriate range of visitor experiences for a given area; zoning is an 

important element of the VERP process. Zones are established on the basis of 

resources and not determined by the location of existing facilities. 

WASO Washington Support Office, headquarters for NPS. 

WFLHD Western Federal Lands Highway Division within FHWA. WFLHD operates as part of 

the FLTP, serving the needs of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, and 

the Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks in Wyoming. 

YOE Year of Expenditure dollars, inflated at stated annual rate to future year (in this 

report, 2.1% annually). 

 
Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page 59 

Appendix 1 

Congestion Mapping from Technical Memorandum 7: Compiled 

Congestion Survey Information Report 
!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

BOHA

AL

AR

AZ

CA

CO

CT

DC

DE

FL

GA

IA

ID

IL IN

KS KY

LA

MA

MD

ME

MI

MN

MO

MS

MT

NC

ND

NE

NHNJ

NM

NV

NY

OH

OK

OR

PA

RI

SC

SD

TN

TX

UT VA

VT

WA

WI

WV

WY

BISC

DINO

EVER

FOPU

FORA

FOUS

BLRI

CIRO

CHAM

CHAT

JEFF

JODA

KIMO

NIOB

RUCA

CAVO

CAVE

LIRI

SACN

SAGA

GRPO

LYJO

PETE

MOCR

MORR

STLI

NATR

TIMU

VICK

HOME

TICA

CUGA

TAPR

WICR

MOCA

PORE

MALU

DETO

ABLI

TONT

WICA

FILA

LEWI

PAIS

CACL

EFMO

FOUN

WRBR

BICA

EDAL

ELMA

EUON

FOLA

FOLS

FOSC

FOVA

GWCA

AGFO

CACH

ARPO

CRMO

CUIS

DAAV

BIBE

BICY

BIHO

BISO

JECA

JOFI

JOMU

RORI

WIHO

LAMR

GOSP

LONG

OCMU

MIMI

SAAN

PAAL

GRBA

MNRR

MORU

SHIL

STRI

THKO

REDW

NEBE

NEPE

TUIN

ULSG

HOCU

WABA TUZI

PIRO

TUAI

HEHO

KEWE

WACA

BADL

HOSP

FOSU PEFO FOSM

ELMO

LABE

KNRI

VOYA

HAGR

GEGR SAPA

FEHA

NICO

IATR

THRO

FODA

PIPE

DRTO

SEMO

NOCO

POCH

FRSP

BAND

BRCA

COLO COLM

GICL

SAGU

GRCA

WEFA

INDE

HUTR

CASA

BUFF

INDU

JAGA

CUVA

FLFO LIBO

LIHO

OZAR

CHSC

GLAC

JELA

DEWA

GETT

CAHA

ASIS

CARE

GLCA

PERI

SHEN

VAFO

FOFR

MUWO

GRSM

SCBL

KEMO

SLBE

ACAD

YELL

GOGA YOSE

ROMO

Figure

1

Total # of Congestion Areas within Park

O

!.

!.

!.

GLBA

DENA AK

LACL

!.!.

!.

!.

HI

KAHO

PUHO

USAR

HAVO

PR

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.!.!.

FOMC

WHHO NACE

MD

VA

PA

WV

DC CEBE

HAMP

MANA

GWMP

BAWA

WOTR

ANTI

HAFE

GETT

CHOH

O

O

O

O

0 240 480

Miles

0 50 100

Miles

0 100 200

Miles

0 20 40

Miles

0 25 50

Miles

0 (77)

!. 1 - 2 (56)

!. 3 - 4 (30)

!. 5 - 6 (14)

!. 7 - 8 (5)!. 9 - 10 (5)

!. 11 (1)

!.

Congestion Summary

NPS Congestion Management Survey Results

Street Base Map © 2010 ESRI ArcGIS Online

Park Boundaries

Alaska RegionIntermountain RegionMidwest Region

National Capital RegionNortheast RegionPacific West Region

Southeast Region

16
!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

AL

AR

AZ

CA

CO

CT

DC

DE

FL

GA

IA

ID

IL IN

KS KY

LA

MA

MD

ME

MI

MN

MO

MS

MT

NC

ND

NE

NH

NJ

NM

NV

NY

OH

OK

OR

PA

RI

SC

SD

TN

TX

UT VA

VT

WA

WI

WV

WY

EVER

FOPU

BAND

ACAD

BRCA

CHOH

ASIS

ROMO

YELL

SAGU

GLCA

MUWO SHEN

STLI

WEFA

GOGA YOSE

SCBL

VAFO

HUTR

CASA

HAFE

DETO

KEMO

GLAC

PAIS

SLBE

FOFR

WRBR

Congestion at Park Entrance Stations

NPS Congestion Management Survey Results

Figure

2

Parks with Congestion at Park Entrance Stations

O

!.

!.

!. AK

!.

!.

!.

!.

HI

PUHO

HAVO

PR

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.!.!.!.

MD

VA WV

PA

DC

CHOH

WOTR

HAFE

O

O

O

O

Street Base Map © 2010 ESRI ArcGIS Online

Park Boundaries

Alaska RegionIntermountain RegionMidwest Region

National Capital RegionNortheast RegionPacific West Region

Southeast Region

0 240 480

Miles

0 50 100

Miles

0 100 200

Miles

0 20 40

Miles

0 25 50

Miles

!. No (156)

!. Yes (32)

17
!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

AL

AR

AZ

CA

CO

CT

DC

DE

FL

GA

IA

ID

IL IN

KS KY

LA

MA

MD

ME

MI

MN

MO

MS

MT

NC

ND

NE

NH

NJ

NM

NV

NY

OH

OK

OR

PA

RI

SC

SD

TN

TX

UT VA

VT

WA

WI

WV

WY

DEWA

DINO

EVER

FORA

FOUS

FRSP

BAND

ACAD

BRCA

CHOH

CIRO

CAHA

ASIS

CHAM

COLO COLM

CHAT

JODA

KIMO

NIOB

ROMO

RUCA

CAVO

CAVE

GICL

YELL

GLCA

LIRI

SACN SAGA

GRCA

GRPO

PERI MOCR

MUWO

GRSM

HAMP

SHEN

TIMU

VICK

WEFA

GOGA YOSE

HOME

SCBL

VAFO

HUTR

CASA

BUFF

INDU

JAGA

TAPR

HAFE

CUVA

MOCA

PORE

FLFO

BOHA

LIHO

ABLI

TONT

OZAR

CHSC

KEMO

LEWI

SLBE

EFMO

FOUN

JELA

FOFR

Figure

3

Parks with Congestion at Parking Areas

O

!.

!.

!. AK

GLBA

DENA

!.

!.

!.

!.

HI

PUHO

HAVO

USAR

PR

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.!.!.!.

MD

VA WV

PA

DC

CHOH

HAMP

WOTR

HAFE

O

O

O

O

0 240 480

Miles

0 50 100

Miles

0 100 200

Miles

0 20 40

Miles

0 25 50

Miles

!. No (110)

!. Yes (78) Congestion at Parking Areas

NPS Congestion Management Survey Results

Street Base Map © 2010 ESRI ArcGIS Online

Park Boundaries

Alaska RegionIntermountain RegionMidwest Region

National Capital RegionNortheast RegionPacific West Region

Southeast Region

18
!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

AL

AR

AZ

CA

CO

CT

DC

DE

FL

GA

IA

ID

IL IN

KS KY

LA

MA

MD

ME

MI

MN

MO

MS

MT

NC

ND

NE

NH

NJ

NM

NV

NY

OH

OK

OR

PA

RI

SC

SD

TN

TX

UT VA

VT

WA

WI

WV

WY

DEWA

FRSP

GETT

ACAD

ASIS

CARE

COLM

ROMO

CEBE

YELL

GRPO

GRSM

NATR

VICK

GOGA

YOSE

SCBL

VAFO

ANTI

TICA

JAGA

WICR

PORE

WICA

KEMO

SLBE

FOFR

BAWA

Figure

4

Parks with Congestion at Primary Park Routes

O

!.

!.

!. AK

!.

!.

!.

!.

HI

HAVO

PR

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!!..!.

!.!.

MD

VA WV

PA

DC

GETT

CEBE

ANTI

O

O

O

O

0 240 480

Miles

0 50 100

Miles

0 100 200

Miles

0 20 40

Miles

0 25 50

Miles

!. No (157)

!. Yes (31) Congestion at Primary Park Vehicle Tour Routes

NPS Congestion Management Survey Results

Street Base Map © 2010 ESRI ArcGIS Online

Park Boundaries

Alaska RegionIntermountain RegionMidwest Region

National Capital RegionNortheast RegionPacific West Region

Southeast Region

19
!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

AL

AR

AZ

CA

CO

CT

DC

DE

FL

GA

IA

ID

IL IN

KS KY

LA

MA

MD

ME

MI

MN

MO

MS

MT

NC

ND

NE

NH

NJ

NM

NV

NY

OH

OK

OR

PA

RI

SC

SD

TN

TX

UT VA

VT

WA

WI

WV

WY

DEWA

ACAD

CHOH

CARE

COLM

ROMO

GICL

YELL

SAGU

GRCA

MUWO

GRSM

SHEN

GOGA YOSE

VAFO

BUFF

CUVA

FLFO

Figure

5

Parks with Congestion at Trailheads

O

!.

!.

!. AK

!.

!.

!.

!.

HI

HAVO

PR

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.!.!.

MD

VA WV

PA

DC

CHOH

O

O

O

O

0 240 480

Miles

0 50 100

Miles

0 100 200

Miles

0 20 40

Miles

0 25 50

Miles

!. No (168)

!. Yes (20) Congestion at Trailheads

NPS Congestion Management Survey Results

Street Base Map © 2010 ESRI ArcGIS Online

Park Boundaries

Alaska RegionIntermountain RegionMidwest Region

National Capital RegionNortheast RegionPacific West Region

Southeast Region

20
!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

AL

AR

AZ

CA

CO

CT

DC

DE

FL

GA

IA

ID

IL IN

KS KY

LA

MA

MD

ME

MI

MN

MO

MS

MT

NC

ND

NE

NH

NJ

NM

NV

NY

OH

OK

OR

PA

RI

SC

SD

TN

TX

UT VA

VT

WA

WI

WV

WY

DEWA

GETT

ACAD

CARE

ROMO MUWO

GRSM

INDE

GOGA YOSE

SCBL

VAFO

CASA

JAGA

CUVA

LIBO

FILA

KEMO

JELA

FOFR

WHHO

Figure

6

Parks with Congestion at Pedestrian Paths/Trails

O

!.

!.

!. AK

GLBA

!.

!.

!.

!.

HI

HAVO

PR

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.!.!.

!.

MD

VA WV

PA

DC

GETT

GWMP

WHHO

O

O

O

O

0 240 480

Miles

0 50 100

Miles

0 100 200

Miles

0 20 40

Miles

0 25 50

Miles

!. No (163)

!. Yes (25) Congestion at Pedestrian Paths/Trails

NPS Congestion Management Survey Results

Street Base Map © 2010 ESRI ArcGIS Online

Park Boundaries

Alaska RegionIntermountain RegionMidwest Region

National Capital RegionNortheast RegionPacific West Region

Southeast Region

21
!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

AL

AR

AZ

CA

CO

CT

DC

DE

FL

GA

IA

ID

IL IN

KS KY

LA

MA

MD

ME

MI

MN

MO

MS

MT

NC

ND

NE

NH

NJ

NM

NV

NY

OH

OK

OR

PA

RI

SC

SD

TN

TX

UT VA

VT

WA

WI

WV

WY

BAND

CAHA CARE

ROMO

GICL

YELL

GLCA

SACN

PERI

MUWO

GOGA

SCBL ANTI

BUFF

INDU

HAFE

MALU

FLFO

OZAR

FILA

GLAC

SLBE

CACL

JELA

Figure

7

Parks with Congestion at Ped/People Loading Areas

O

!.

!.

!. AK

GLBA

!.

!.

!.

!.

HI

HAVO

USAR

PR

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.!.!.!.

MD

VA WV

PA

DC

ANTI

HAFE

O

O

O

O

0 240 480

Miles

0 50 100

Miles

0 100 200

Miles

0 20 40

Miles

0 25 50

Miles

!. No (160)

!. Yes (28) Congestion at Pedestrian/People Loading Areas

NPS Congestion Management Survey Results

Street Base Map © 2010 ESRI ArcGIS Online

Park Boundaries

Alaska RegionIntermountain RegionMidwest Region

National Capital RegionNortheast RegionPacific West Region

Southeast Region

22
!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

AL

AR

AZ

CA

CO

CT

DC

DE

FL

GA

IA

ID

IL IN

KS KY

LA

MA

MD

ME

MI

MN

MO

MS

MT

NC

ND

NE

NH

NJ

NM

NV

NY

OH

OK

OR

PA

RI

SC

SD

TN

TX

UT VA

VT

WA

WI

WV

WY

BLRI

ACAD

BRCA

CHOH

CARE

JODA

ROMO

YELL

GRSM

SHEN GOGA

YOSE

SCBL

ANTI

CACL

WHHO

Figure

8

Parks with Congestion at Scenic Overlooks

O

!.

!.

!. AK DENA

!.

!.

!.

!.

HI

HAVO

PR

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.!.!.

!.

MD

VA WV

PA

DC

CHOH

ANTI

WHHO

O

O

O

O

0 240 480

Miles

0 50 100

Miles

0 100 200

Miles

0 20 40

Miles

0 25 50

Miles

!. No (170)

!. Yes (18) Congestion at Scenic Overlooks

NPS Congestion Management Survey Results

Street Base Map © 2010 ESRI ArcGIS Online

Park Boundaries

Alaska RegionIntermountain RegionMidwest Region

National Capital RegionNortheast RegionPacific West Region

Southeast Region

23
!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

AL

AR

AZ

CA

CO

CT

DC

DE

FL

GA

IA

ID

IL IN

KS KY

LA

MA

MD

ME

MI

MN

MO

MS

MT

NC

ND

NE

NH

NJ

NM

NV

NY

OH

OK

OR

PA

RI

SC

SD

TN

TX

UT VA

VT

WA

WI

WV

WY

BISC

GETT

ACAD

CAHA

ASIS

COLO

ROMO

YELL

GLCA

PERI

INDE

GOGA

YOSE

INDU

MALU

OZAR

KEMO

PAIS

SLBE

Figure

9

Parks with Congestion at Other Park Attractions

O

!.

!.

!. AK

GLBA

!.

!.

!.

!.

HI

PUHO

HAVO

USAR

PR

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.!.!.

MD

VA WV

PA

DC

GETT

O

O

O

O

0 240 480

Miles

0 50 100

Miles

0 100 200

Miles

0 20 40

Miles

0 25 50

Miles

!. No (165)

!. Yes (23) Congestion at Other Park Attractions

NPS Congestion Management Survey Results

Street Base Map © 2010 ESRI ArcGIS Online

Park Boundaries

Alaska RegionIntermountain RegionMidwest Region

National Capital RegionNortheast RegionPacific West Region

Southeast Region

24
!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

AL

AR

AZ

CA

CO

CT

DC

DE

FL

GA

IA

ID

IL IN

KS KY

LA

MA

MD

ME

MI

MN

MO

MS

MT

NC

ND

NE

NH

NJ

NM

NV

NY

OH

OK

OR

PA

RI

SC

SD

TN

TX

UT VA

VT

WA

WI

WV

WY

DEWA

FRSP

GETT

BLRI

ACAD

CHOH

JEFF

ROMO

RUCA

YELL

SAGU

PERI

PETE

MORR

MUWO

GRSM

SHEN

NATR

INDE

GOGA YOSE

HOME

VAFO

MANA

HUTR BUFF

CUGA

TAPR

HAFE

BOHA

LIBO

LIHO

TONT

CHSC KEMO

SLBE

FOFR

NACES

Figure

10

Parks with Congestion at Roadways Accessing Park

O

!.

!.

!. AK DENA

!.!.

!.

!.

HI

KAHO

PR

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.!.!.!.

MD

VA WV

PA

DC

GETT

CHOH

CEBE

HAFE

GWMP

NACES

O

O

O

O

0 240 480

Miles

0 50 100

Miles

0 100 200

Miles

0 20 40

Miles

0 25 50

Miles

!. No (143)

!. Yes (45) Congestion at Roadways Accessing the Park

NPS Congestion Management Survey Results

Street Base Map © 2010 ESRI ArcGIS Online

Park Boundaries

Alaska RegionIntermountain RegionMidwest Region

National Capital RegionNortheast RegionPacific West Region

Southeast Region

25
!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

AL

AR

AZ

CA

CO

CT

DC

DE

FL

GA

IA

ID

IL IN

KS KY

LA

MA

MD

ME

MI

MN

MO

MS

MT

NC

ND

NE

NH

NJ

NM

NV

NY

OH

OK

OR

PA

RI

SC

SD

TN

TX

UT VA

VT

WA

WI

WV

WY

ACAD

CAHA

ROMO

GLCA

GRCA

MUWO

GOGA YOSE

CUVA

BOHA

LIBO

OZAR

Figure

11

Parks with Congestion at Transit Stops

O

!.

!.

!. AK

!.

!.

!.

!.

HI

USAR

PR

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.!.!.

MD

VA WV

PA

DC

O

O

O

O

0 240 480

Miles

0 50 100

Miles

0 100 200

Miles

0 20 40

Miles

0 25 50

Miles

!. No (175)

!. Yes (13) Congestion at Transit Stops

NPS Congestion Management Survey Results

Street Base Map © 2010 ESRI ArcGIS Online

Park Boundaries

Alaska RegionIntermountain RegionMidwest Region

National Capital RegionNortheast RegionPacific West Region

Southeast Region

26
!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

AL

AR

AZ

CA

CO

CT

DC

DE

FL

GA

IA

ID

IL IN

KS KY

LA

MA

MD

ME

MI

MN

MO

MS

MT

NC

ND

NE

NH

NJ

NM

NV

NY

OH

OK

OR

PA

RI

SC

SD

TN

TX

UT VA

VT

WA

WI

WV

WY

DEWA

DINO

FORA

FRSP

GETT

BRCA CAHA

ASIS

CARE

COLO

KIMO

ROMO

CAVE

YELL

GLCA

LYJO

PERI GRSM

WEFA

INDE

YOSE

SCBL ANTI

TICA

FLFO

DETO

LIHO

CHSC KEMO

GLAC

LEWI

SLBE

EFMO

JELA

Figure

12

Parks with Congestion at Visitor Centers

O

!.

!.

!. AK

GLBA

!.

!.

!.

!.

HI

HAVO

USAR

PR

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.!.!.!.

MD

VA WV

PA

DC

GETT ANTI

O

O

O

O

0 240 480

Miles

0 50 100

Miles

0 100 200

Miles

0 20 40

Miles

0 25 50

Miles

!. No (150)

!. Yes (38) Congestion at Visitor Centers

NPS Congestion Management Survey Results

Street Base Map © 2010 ESRI ArcGIS Online

Park Boundaries

Alaska RegionIntermountain RegionMidwest Region

National Capital RegionNortheast RegionPacific West Region

Southeast Region

27
Final PWR LRTP – April 2015 Page 72 
Fiscal

Year Park Type of Project Project Description Funding

Asset Management

Activity Type

2006 DEPO Planning Study

Feasibility study for implementation of a sustainable

transportation system for Reds Meadow/Devils Postpile. $          167,000 Planning

2006 HAVO Planning Study

Data collection/studies and re‐source surveys for

potential alternative transportation system along two

primary roads where congestion and over‐crowding are

causing resource damage and compromising visitor safety

and experience. $          120,000 Planning

2006 LEWI Bus

Fund shuttle bus leasing from the park’s partner, Sunset

Empire Transit District. $            50,000 Transit Operations

2006 MUWO

Intelligent

Transportation

Design and build electronic warning signs, traffic counters,

high‐way advisory radio, web cameras, a centralized

management software package, and other equipment as

necessary. $          490,000

Capital Improvement/

New Construction

2006 MUWO Planning Study

Secure consultant services for planning effort to address

visitor access issues at Muir Woods National Monument

(managed by Golden Gate National Recreation Area). $          500,000 Planning

2006 NOCA Bus

Purchase 4 buses to replace old buses that transport

visitors within the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area. $          947,000

Component Renewal/

Recapitalization

2006 PORE Planning Study

Fund an implementation feasibility study and financial

plan for the upgrade of an existing park shuttle system to

an alternate‐fuel system for the heavily visited Point

Reyes Headlands. $          175,000 Planning

2006 SAFR Planning Study

Planning to extend San Francisco Municipal Railway’s

Historic streetcars from Fisherman’s Wharf 0.85 mile to

San Francisco Maritime National Historic Park and the

Fort Mason Center at Golden Gate Nat’l Recreation Area. $          300,000 Planning

2006 SEKI Bus

Lease buses for the Giant Forest Shuttle and Gateway

Shuttle Link to connect key sites within Sequoia National

Park lodging, camping, food service facilities, popular day

use trails, and features of the world‐famous Giant Forest

Sequoia grove. $          165,000 Transit Operations

2006 SEKI Bus

Purchase five shuttle busses for the City of Visalia to run a

new service from the San Joaquin Valley to popular

Sequoia National Park. $          400,000

Component Renewal/

Recapitalization

2006 YOSE Park and Ride Lot

Construct two park and ride lots to allow visitors to park

and use the YARTS service to access the national park,

mitigating congestion within the park. $          582,579

Capital Improvement/

New Construction

2006 YOSE Planning Study

Update traffic, transit, parking, and intersection counts;

(2) update existing trip tables; (3) update and complete

computer models; (4) evaluate the relationships be‐tween

transportation and park experience; (5) correlate visitor

experience with traffic data. $          486,000 Planning

Appendix 2

Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Program (TRIP) Grants History in PWR
Fiscal

Year Park Type of Project Project Description Funding

Asset Management

Activity Type

2007 DEPO Bus

Capital cost of leasing ten buses for the Red Meadows‐

Devils Postpile transit system Funds also to be used for

visitor information on the transit system. $          100,000 Transit Operations

2007 GOGA Planning Study Prepare operational plan for the Fort Baker Shuttle. $            70,000 Planning

2007 LEWI Bus

Fund shuttle bus leasing from Sunset Empire Transit

District. $            43,000 Transit Operations

2007 MUWO Bus

Lease ten clean fuel shuttle buses for Muir Woods shuttle

service and improve the Muir Woods Centennial transit

stop. $          492,500 Transit Operations

2007 SAFR Planning Study

Prepare Environmental Impact Statement for the

extension of the San Francisco Municipal Railway Historic

Streetcar Route/Line. $          493,000 Planning

2007 SEKI Bus

Lease five 30′ shuttle buses for the Giant Forest Shuttle

System in Sequoia National Park. $          225,000 Transit Operations

2007 YOSE Bus

Lease Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System

(YARTS) Vehicles. $          264,600 Transit Operations

2007 YOSE Bus

Complete park wide Integrated Transportation Capacity

Assessment. $          621,600 Planning

2008 CHIS Planning Study

Conduct planning and complete engineering study to

improve access to Santa Cruz Island. $          380,000 Planning

2008 DEPO Bus Devils Postpile/Reds Meadow shuttle bus leasing. $          105,000 Transit Operations

2008 GOGA Bus

Implement a fee parking system to fund shuttle and

transit access. $          360,000 Transit Operations

2008 GOGA Planning Study Prepare an EIS. $          490,000 Planning

2008 LEWI Bus

Fund shuttle bus leasing from Sunset Empire Transit

District. $            43,000 Transit Operations

2008 MORA Bus Lease Paradise Area shuttle service vehicles. $          110,900 Transit Operations

2008 MUWO Other

Design accessible bus stops and multi‐use link to transit at

Muir Beach. $          155,000 Planning

2008 SEKI Bus Lease shuttle buses for the Giant Forest Shuttle System. $          230,000 Transit Operations

2008 SEKI Bus San Joaquin Valley/Sequoia NP gateway shuttle link. $          250,000 Transit Operations

2008 YOSE Bus

Lease Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System

(YARTS) Vehicles. $          272,520 Transit Operations

2008 YOSE Tram

Purchase new tram vehicles for Mariposa Grove of Giant

Sequoias. $      1,600,000

Component Renewal/

Recapitalization

2008 YOSE Planning Study

Comprehensive transportation study and development of

a multi‐agency master transportation plan for Eastern

Sierra. $          350,000 Planning

2008 YOSE Planning Study Establish a Park Transportation Improvement Plan. $          500,000 Planning

2009 DEPO Bus

Purchase buses for transit in Reds Meadow and Devils

Postpile. $      1,600,000

Component Renewal/

Recapitalization

2009 GOGA Other Bus stops and multi‐use path to transit at Muir Beach. $          460,000

Capital Improvement/

New Construction

2009 GOGA Bus Pilot Marin Headlands shuttle. $          405,000 Transit Operations
Fiscal

Year Park Type of Project Project Description Funding

Asset Management

Activity Type

2009 GOGA Other Bus stop amenities in Marin Headlands and Fort Baker. $          145,000

Capital Improvement/

New Construction

2009 LEWI Bus

Fund shuttle bus leasing from the park’s partner, Sunset

Empire Transit District. $            33,000 Transit Operations

2009 MORA Bus Park visitor shuttle bus lease. $          110,900 Transit Operations

2009 PORE Bus Headlands shuttle bus lease. $            47,000 Transit Operations

2009 PORE Other Stops, wayfinding and shelters. $          296,400

Capital Improvement/

New Construction

2009 YOSE Bus Purchase 3 clean diesel buses for YARTS. $      1,605,000

Component Renewal/

Recapitalization

2009 YOSE

Intelligent

Transportation

Implement Integrated Parkside Traffic Management

System. $      1,280,000 Transit Operations

2010 CABR Bus Cabrillo Circulator Shuttle $          625,000

Component Renewal/

Recapitalization

2010 LEWI Bus Lewis and Clark Explorer Shuttle $            43,000 Transit Operations

2010 MORA Bus Lease Paradise Area shuttle service vehicles. $          110,500 Transit Operations

2010 MORA

Intelligent

Transportation Install phase 1 intelligent transit information system. $          375,000

Capital Improvement/

New Construction

2010 SEKI Bus

Lease shuttle buses for the Giant Forest Shuttle System in

Sequoia National Park. $          240,000 Transit Operations

2010 SEKI Planning Study Complete Transportation and User Capacity Assessment. $          450,000 Planning

2010 SEKI Other San Joaquin Valley/Sequoia NP gateway shuttle link. $          660,000 Transit Operations

2010 YOSE

Intelligent

Transportation

Install ITS and transit information systems in the southern

part of Yosemite NP. $          495,000

Capital Improvement/

New Construction

2011 GOGA Other

Initial phase of improvements to California Coastal

Bike/Ped Trail section in Presidio. $      1,000,000

Capital Improvement/

New Construction

2011 GOGA Bus Purchase five 35‐foot XHF vehicles. $      1,100,000

Component Renewal/

Recapitalization

2011 MORA Bus Lease Paradise Area shuttle service vehicles. $          106,400 Transit Operations

2011 SEKI Bus San Joaquin Valley/Sequoia NP gateway shuttle link. $          250,000 Transit Operations

2011 SEKI Bus Lease shuttle buses for the Giant Forest Shuttle System. $          270,000 Transit Operations

2011 YOSE Planning Study

Complete planning for visitor transit, staging and

pedestrian routes for Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias. $          890,000 Planning

2012 ALKA Other

The Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail will receive funds

to improve infrastructure and access to the historic 175‐

mile trail by installing road, parking, and trail signs and

trail treatments to improve trail user safety, protect

cultural and natural resources, and enhance visitor’s

experiences, while honoring Native Hawaiian culture and

the environment. $          275,000

Capital Improvement/

New Construction
Fiscal

Year Park Type of Project Project Description Funding

Asset Management

Activity Type

2012 GOGA Other

The Golden Gate National Recreation Area will receive

funds to expand and complete the multiuse Bay Trail in

the Presidio of San Francisco, creating an accessible, multi‐

use route for pedestrians and bicyclists traveling between

the Golden Gate Bridge to destinations along the

northern waterfront of San Francisco. $          400,000

Capital Improvement/

New Construction

2012 MUWO Bus

The Marin County Transit District will receive funds to

purchase new vehicles and signage to

expand its Muir Woods Shuttle service between Sausalito

and the Muir Woods National Monument, which has

800,000 annual visitors. The shuttle service provides

clean, fuel‐efficient transportation to the park, easing

congestion for visitors. $          638,000

Component Renewal/

Recapitalization

2012 YOSE Bus

The Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System will

receive funds to purchase a clean diesel, ADA‐ accessible

motor coach and expand its transit service to Yosemite

National Park, where demand for alternative forms of

transportation has been rising along with the number of

visitors to the park each year. $          583,941

Component Renewal/

Recapitalization

TOTAL: $    26,032,840
   
National Park Service 

Pacific West Region