National Par k Ser vice 

U.S. Depar tment of the Inter ior 

Kenai Fjor ds National Par k 

Sewar d, Alaska 

Kenai Fjords National Park: Exit Glacier Area 

Summer Transportation Feasibility Study 

FINAL REPORT 

Exit Glacier from Herman Leirer Road 

Source: NPS Alaska Regional Office (August 2019) 

PMIS No. 220697A 

October 10, 2019 
 

 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188 

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering 

and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of 

information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 

1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503. 

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 

October 10, 2019 

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED 

Final Report 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Kenai Fjords National Park: Exit Glacier Area Summer Transportation Feasibility Study 

5a. FUNDING NUMBERS 

VXU7A1/SE293 

VXU7A1/SE294 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

Quinn Newton, Erica Simmons, Emma Vinella-Brusher, Rachel Galton, Scott Lian, Kirsten Van Fossen 

5b. CONTRACT NUMBER 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 

Transportation Planning Division 

55 Broadway 

Cambridge, MA 02142-1093 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT 

DOT-VNTSC-NPS-19-02 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

Kevin Doniere 

National Park Service 

Alaska Regional Office 

240 W 5th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99501 

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING 

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Public distribution/availability 

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE 

13. ABSTRACT 

The purpose of the Exit Glacier Area summer transportation feasibility study for Kenai Fjords National Park (KEFJ) is to understand the current 

transportation conditions at the Exit Glacier Area and evaluate the feasibility of a range of potential actions to improve transportation conditions. 

This study is not a plan and will not result in a decision or project without further planning and community engagement. However, this study will 

provide KEFJ and the National Park Service (NPS) Alaska Region (AKR) with information and analysis to better understand the current state of 

transportation access to the Exit Glacier Area and the feasibility of potential enhanced access. 

NPS and KEFJ are not considering an NPS-owned or operated transit system to provide park access, and are instead interested in identifying options 

for the park to support business opportunities for private entities. 

The specific goals of this study are to understand current conditions and demand for transit service to the Exit Glacier Area; identify short-term 

strategies to improve transportation access for visitors; and consider visitation and transportation trends and anticipate future needs. 

14. SUBJECT TERMS 

National Park Service, congestion management, parking, multimodal transportation, pedestrian, bicycle, transit, 

transit feasibility study, business models alternatives, data, intelligent transportation systems, partnerships 

15. NUMBER OF PAGES 

76 

16. PRICE CODE 

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

OF REPORT 

Unclassified 

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

OF THIS PAGE 

Unclassified 

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

OF ABSTRACT 

Unclassified 

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT 

Unlimited 

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 ii 

298-102 
Contents 

Report notes............................................................................................................... iv 

Acknowledgments....................................................................................................... v 

Definitions .................................................................................................................. vi 

Table of Figures......................................................................................................... vii 

Table of Tables ......................................................................................................... viii 

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

Existing Conditions............................................................................................................................................1 

Potential Considerations to Improve Transportation Access.............................................................. 2 

Conclusion and Next Steps............................................................................................................................ 3 

Introduction.................................................................................................................5 

Purpose of this Study....................................................................................................................................... 5 

KEFJ’s Desired Transportation Conditions................................................................................................. 6 

KEFJ Overview and Setting ..........................................................................................7 

Park Foundation Statement........................................................................................................................... 7 

Park Location...................................................................................................................................................... 7 

Related Planning Efforts................................................................................................................................. 11 

Existing Conditions.................................................................................................... 14 

Transportation Access to the Exit Glacier Area.....................................................................................14 

Use and Visitation............................................................................................................................................19 

Site Visit Summary...........................................................................................................................................21 

Exit Glacier Area Transportation Problem Statements ...............................................24 

Potential Considerations to Improve Transportation Access to the Exit Glacier Area.25 

Nature Center Parking Lot: Infrastructure and Parking Management...........................................25 

Transit Considerations...................................................................................................................................27 

Multi-modal Transportation.........................................................................................................................51 

Transportation Data.......................................................................................................................................53 

Traveler Information.......................................................................................................................................54 

Partnerships.......................................................................................................................................................55 

Conclusion.................................................................................................................57 

Potential Sequencing of Congestion Management Strategies........................................................57 

Next Steps and Resources for Implementation.....................................................................................63 

Appendix A: Vehicle Recommendations....................................................................64 

Constraints and Requirements....................................................................................................................64 

Suitable Vehicle Platforms............................................................................................................................64 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 iii 
Report notes 

This report was managed by the Federal Highway Administration’s Western Federal Lands

Division Office (WFL), in Vancouver, Washington, and it was prepared by WFL and the U.S. 

Department of Transportation John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

(Volpe), in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The project manager was Quinn Newton (WFL). The 

Volpe team was led by Erica Simmons, of the Transportation Planning Division, and 

included Rachel Galton and Emma Vinella-Brusher, of the Transportation Planning Division,

and Scott Lian and Kirsten Van Fossen, of the Energy Analysis and Sustainability Division. 

This effort was undertaken in fulfillment of PMIS 220697A, Exit Glacier Area Summer 

Transportation Feasibility Study and funded through Reimbursable Agreement VXU7A1 

between Volpe and the NPS Alaska Region. 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 iv 
 

 

Acknowledgments 

The authors wish to thank the numerous organizations and individuals, who graciously 

provided their time, knowledge and guidance in the development of this report, including: 

Kenai Fjords National Park 

Eric Veach, Superintendent

Kirk Desermia 

Sharon Kim 

Lisa McClure 

Doug Olds 

Shauna Potocky

Rob Wissinger 

National Park Service Alaska Regional Office

Kevin Doniere 

Paul Schrooten 

Federal Highway Administration- National Park Service Partner 

A.J. Nedzesky

Pamela Ziesler 

Adventure 60 North 

Rick Brown 

City of Seward 

Brennan Hickok 

Karin Sturdy

Jackie Wilde 

Alaska Sealife Center 

Tara Reimer 

Alaska Railroad/Port of Seward 

Christy Terry 

Exit Glacier Guides/Liquid Adventures 

Brendan Ryan 

Seward City Tours 

Jonah Swiderski 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 v 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Definitions 

The following terms are used in this report: 

5311 Formula Grants for Rural Areas 

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act 

ADOT&PF Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities 

AKR Alaska Region 

ARRC Alaska Railroad Company 

CUA Commercial Use Authorization 

DNR Department of Natural Resources 

E-bike Electric Bike 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FLAP Federal Lands Access Program 

FLHP Federal Lands Highway Program 

FLTP Federal Lands Transportation Program 

FLREA Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act 

GPS Global Positioning System 

ITS Intelligent Transportation System 

KEFJ Kenai Fjords National Park 

NPS National Park Service 

RV Recreational Vehicle 

Volpe U.S. Department of Transportation Volpe National Transportation 

Systems Center 

WASO Washington Support Office 

WC Wheelchair 

WFL Western Federal Lands Highway Division 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 vi 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Figures 

Figure 1: Visitors to Exit Glacier............................................................................................6 

Figure 2: Kenai Fjords National Park is located approximately 130 miles south of

Anchorage..............................................................................................................................7 

Figure 3: NPS Map of Kenai Fjords National Park..................................................................9

Figure 4: Map of trail to Exit Glacier...................................................................................10 

Figure 5: Visitors Wait Outside the Alaska Railroad Seward Intermodal Facility................ 13 

Figure 6: The route from Seward to the Exit Glacier Area extends 3.5 miles on Route 9 (The

Seward Highway) and 8.2 miles on Herman Leirer Road. It is the only point of entry to the 

park accessible by personal vehicle..................................................................................... 14 

Figure 7: The Parking Lot Directing Buses to the Right, and Other Vehicles to the Left ...... 15

Figure 8: Bus Parking is Located along the Perimeter of the Parking Lot............................ 16 

Figure 9: Aerial view of Kenai Fjords parking lot from the 2015 Parking Lot Signing and

Striping Plan. Parking lot entrance is on the right, and the Nature Center is located off to 

the left. Shaded areas in the upper left indicate spaces reserved for bus parking............... 16 

Figure 11: Spillover Car and RV Parking at the Nature Center Parking Lot.......................... 17

Figure 10: Overflow Vehicle Parking on the Road Shoulder Entering the Nature Center 

Parking Lot........................................................................................................................... 17 

Figure 12: Kenai Fjords Annual Visitation, 1990-2017......................................................... 19

Figure 13: Kenai Fjords Monthly Visitation, 2015-2017 ....................................................... 19 

Figure 14: Traffic Counts at the Nature Center Parking Lot, 2013-2018..............................20

Figure 15: Potential Shuttle Route between Downtown Seward and Nature Center............29 

Figure 16: Potential Sites for a Park-and-ride Lot along Herman Leirer Road..................... 31 

Figure 17: Potential Route from Forest Service Lots to Nature Center ................................34

Figure 18: Potential Park-and-ride Shuttle Route from Wilma Ave/New RV Park Site to 

Nature Center.......................................................................................................................36 

Figure 19: Goshen Coach Pacer II.........................................................................................66

Figure 20: Champion Bus Defender......................................................................................67 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 vii 
 

 

 

 

 

Table of Tables 

Table 1: Service Concept for a Shuttle between Seward and the Exit Glacier Area..............28 

Table 2: Sample Timetable for the Seward to the Exit Glacier Area Shuttle Concept ..........30

Table 3: Service Concepts for Park-and-ride Shuttle between Various Potential Sites and 

Nature Center.......................................................................................................................33 

Table 4: Fastest Possible Sample Schedule for Park-and-ride Shuttle between Forest Service 

Lots and Nature Center........................................................................................................35 

Table 5: Conservative Sample Schedule for Park-and-ride Shuttle between Forest Service

Lots and Nature Center........................................................................................................35 

Table 6: Fastest Possible Sample Schedule for Park-and-ride Shuttle between Wilma 

Ave/New RV Park Site and Nature Center............................................................................37

Table 7: Sample Schedule for Conservative Pace Park-and-ride Shuttle between Wilma 

Ave/New RV Park Site and Nature Center............................................................................37

Table 8: Transit Shuttle Value Propositions to User Segments............................................39 

Table 9: Park-and-ride Value Propositions to User Segments..............................................40 

Table 10: Transit Shuttle Value Propositions to Potential Key Partners ..............................40

Table 11: Park-and-ride Value Propositions to Key Partners................................................ 41 

Table 12: Summary of Constant Inputs, Passenger Van Option............................................44 

Table 13: Summary of Constant Inputs, Cutaway Shuttle Option.........................................45

Table 14: Business Model Components of the Study.............................................................49 

Table 15: Summary of Nature Center Parking Lot Considerations, from Lowest to Highest

Effort....................................................................................................................................58 

Table 16: Summary of Exit Glacier Transit Considerations, from Lowest to Highest Effort 59 

Table 17: Summary of Exit Glacier Multi-modal Transportation Considerations, from Lowest

to Highest Effort ..................................................................................................................60 

Table 18: Summary of Exit Glacier Traveler Information Considerations, from Lowest to 

Highest Effort.......................................................................................................................62

Table 19: Summary Characteristics of Potential Transit Vehicle Types...............................65 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 viii 
 

 

 

Executive Summary 

The purpose of the Exit Glacier Area Summer Transportation Feasibility Study for Kenai 

Fjords National Park (KEFJ) is to evaluate the current transportation conditions at the Exit 

Glacier Area – including parking lot congestion and multi-modal access – and evaluate the 

feasibility of a range of potential infrastructure, operations, or traveler information actions 

to improve transportation conditions. This study is not a plan and will not result in a 

decision or project without further planning and community engagement. However, this 

study will provide KEFJ and the National Park Service (NPS) Alaska Region (AKR) with

information and analysis to better understand the current state of transportation access to

the Exit Glacier Area and the feasibility of potential enhanced access. 

This report is a result of the study, which is a partnership between KEFJ, NPS AKR, the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)’s Western Federal Lands Highway Division 

(WFL), and the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Volpe National Transportation Systems

Center (Volpe). 

The primary challenges faced in the Exit Glacier Area are as follows: 

• Nature Center Parking Lot: Current capacity of the Exit Glacier Nature Center 

parking lot is not sufficient to handle peak demand for visitors. 

• Transit: Development of a transit service requires funding allocation, operations and 

maintenance agreements, route development, scheduling and system infrastructure. 

• Multi-modal Transportation: Residents and visitors would like to use Herman Leirer 

Road for non-motorized transportation such as bikes, but peak vehicle traffic makes 

this unsafe. 

• Transportation Data: Additional vehicle and visitor information is required to 

determine current impacts and understand demand for parking and transit both now 

and in the future. 

• Information: Changes to the parking, operations, or development of a transit system 

must be marketed and shared appropriately and consistently. 

• Partnerships: Managing parking congestion and providing transportation access 

between Seward and Exit Glacier Area requires collaboration with a variety of 

public and private partners. 

The primary findings and recommendations from this report are summarized below: 

Existing Conditions 

• Existing Transportation Options: 

o Visitors can access the Exit Glacier Area by travelling northwest of Seward

about 12.2 miles, or 20-30 minutes, via Herman Leirer Road and Highway 9. 

This road is closed seasonally from approximately mid-November to early 

May. 

o The Exit Glacier Nature Center and parking lot serve as the terminus of 

Herman Leirer Road. The parking lot contains 71 spaces for passenger 

vehicles, 24 spaces for recreational vehicles (RVs), 6 short-term parking

spaces for tour buses and shuttles, 4 passenger vehicle spaces reserved for 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility and two 10-minute

passenger loading and unloading spaces. The parking lot typically 

experiences congestion between 10 am to 3 pm in the summer months. 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 1 
 

 

 

o The privately-run Exit Glacier Shuttle provides transportation service

between downtown Seward and Exit Glacier from late May to September. 

This primarily serves visitors who arrive via cruise ship and do not have 

access to a vehicle. Shuttle trips are $15 round trip and must be pre-booked. 

o Other transportation options to the Exit Glacier Area include local taxis and 

private bus tours. 

• Use and Visitation: 

o Kenai Fjords attracts approximately 300,000 visitors annually, with the 

large majority visiting between May and September. Approximately 100,000

of these visitors arrive in the month of July. 

o The Exit Glacier Nature Center parking lot received approximately 58,000 

vehicles in 2018. This averaged to about 490 vehicles per day from June-Aug, 

though peak days would have substantially more vehicles. As the parking lot 

overflows, passenger cars and RVs tend to park along the road shoulder or

circle to find a spot. 

o The City of Seward expects to see an increasing number of visitors arriving 

by cruise ship in the future; this could increase visitation to the Exit Glacier

Area, primarily by tour bus. 

Potential Considerations to Improve Transportation Access 

• Infrastructure and Parking Management 

o A redesign could combine bus and RV circulation to eliminate conflict points 

and reduce confusion. 

o Traffic calming via striping and signage could help slow entering vehicles. 

o Small, phased changes to the parking lot configuration could achieve 

additional parking capacity. 

o Parking attendants can continue to help manage parking congestion by 

directing vehicles. 

o A more substantial expansion of the parking lot could increase the size of the 

lot by about 2.5 acres but would require substantial planning, investment, 

and long-term maintenance commitments. 

• Transit 

o Two potential service concepts could provide access to the park for those 

without a personal vehicle and reduce vehicle congestion: 

 Concept 1: A shuttle service to move visitors between downtown 

Seward and the Exit Glacier Area. 

 Concept 2: A park-and-ride service to transport visitors to the Exit 

Glacier Area from an overflow parking lot along Herman Leirer Road. 

o A shuttle service would operate similarly to the existing shuttle service. KEFJ

could continue to work with the existing operator, and could consider ways 

to support or enhance service. 

o A park-and-ride service could operate at one of four sites along Herman 

Leirer Road. Service would ideally be continuous during peak hours, and 

operate on a more leisurely schedule during off-peak times. However, a parkand-ride system would entail considerable operational challenges. For 

example, the utility of a park-and-ride service decreases as the frequency 

decreases, given that visitors will likely not want to wait for a significant

period of time. 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 2 
 

o KEFJ is not considering a NPS-owned and NPS-operated model; the park is 

interested in supporting business opportunities for private entities rather 

than running a transit system. 

• Multi-modal Transportation 

o Members of the public in Seward expressed strong support for an off-road

multi-use path along Herman Leirer Road. This would provide safe, 

comfortable access to Exit Glacier by bike or foot, but it would require 

substantial investment, coordination along the multi-jurisdictional road

corridor, and long-term maintenance commitments. KEFJ conducted a 

feasibility study for this potential project from 2010-2013, but there are no 

current plans for implementation. 

o Less costly strategies for enhancing multi-modal access along Herman Leirer 

Road include signage/wayfinding improvements and roadway safety

enhancements (e.g., shoulder widening and lane demarcation). 

• Transportation Data 

o The project team identified current data gaps related to parking lot 

utilization (e.g., mix of vehicle types, duration of stay, typical times when 

parking lot meets or exceeds capacity), transit use, and general tourism 

trends. 

o Community members in Seward expressed a strong interest in data, wanting 

to ensure that KEFJ makes data-driven decisions regarding the Exit Glacier

Area. 

o The project team recommends collecting additional data and monitoring 

conditions at the Nature Center parking lot prior to undertaking substantial

new projects. 

• Traveler Information 

o Traveler information is a relatively simple way to increase traveler

understanding of transportation options (including existing transit) and 

encourage visitors to take steps to avoid parking congestion. These options

include disseminating information on the KEFJ website and working with 

local partners to provide consistent messaging throughout Seward. 

o KEFJ could pursue an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) to provide realtime information to travelers on parking lot and transit conditions via 

variable message signs and/or website and app updates. However, the lack of 

cell phone and internet coverage in the Exit Glacier Area is currently a

barrier to implementation. 

• Partnerships 

o Given the multi-jurisdictional nature of the Herman Leirer Road Corridor and 

the importance of private partners such as transit providers and local 

outfitters in providing transportation services and information to visitors,

partnerships are crucial to the successful implementation of many of the 

strategies in this report. 

Conclusion and Next Steps 

This report discusses a wide range of potential strategies for improving transportation 

access to the Exit Glacier Area of KEFJ. The conclusion arranges these strategies by their

relative level of effort, to identify the strategies that KEFJ can implement in the short term 

and those that would require longer term studies or have substantial costs. KEFJ should 

pursue actions that are feasible in the short term (“quick wins”), while collecting data and

monitoring conditions. Improving data on parking lot and transit use will be necessary 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 3 
prior to undertaking more substantial potential projects, such as parking lot expansion or a

new or expanded transit service. Community support and coordination with stakeholders 

will be crucial to the success of the strategies in this report. Therefore, KEFJ should discuss 

the strategies in this report with its partners and community stakeholders to identify

strategies of mutual benefit and potential implementation approaches. 

In addition, it is important to consider future uncertainty. KEFJ should monitor future 

visitation and parking conditions in the Exit Glacier Area and develop responses 

appropriate to demonstrated need. Where possible, KEFJ should also pursue “actions of no

regret,” which will be effective under a range of future visitation conditions. 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 4 
 

 

 

Introduction 

Kenai Fjords National Park is located in south-central Alaska, just outside the City of 

Seward. KEFJ is home to the Harding Icefield, Exit Glacier, and nearly 40 other glaciers.

The Exit Glacier Area is the only area of the park accessible by car, where visitors can 

witness the power of Exit Glacier up close. The Exit Glacier Nature Center and trailhead are

located 8.2 miles northwest of the Seward Highway at the end of Herman Leirer Road. In 

2016, the Exit Glacier Area received 167,000 visitors. Over the past ten years, an average of 

51,000 vehicles per year have traveled to the Exit Glacier Area in cars, buses, or RVs. The

road ends at the Exit Glacier Nature Center parking lot, the only lot available to

accommodate vehicles arriving at the park. 

The Nature Center parking lot does not have the capacity to accommodate growing demand 

and experiences parking congestion during the summer season. The parking lot is at or 

above capacity many days, particularly on weekends, around holidays, or on good weather 

days. On busy days, both visitors arriving by passenger vehicle or RV may find parking 

unavailable and either circle through the parking lot multiple times or park in undesignated

locations along the parking lot’s unpaved shoulders. This congestion can have negative 

impacts on visitor experience, safety, and natural resources. As a result, KEFJ is seeking

potential strategies to manage parking congestion at this site. 

This Summer Transportation Feasibility Study documents the existing conditions and

trends affecting the Exit Glacier Area and considers the feasibility of a range of

management strategies to manage congestion. The report includes following chapters: 

1. Introduction: Explains the purpose of the study and KEFJ’s transportation goals. 

2. KEFJ Overview and Setting: Provides information on the park’s location and 

planning context. 

3. Existing Conditions: Documents the existing conditions and trends related to 

transportation to the Exit Glacier Area. 

4. Problem Statements: Inventories the range of transportation challenges at the Exit 

Glacier Area. 

5. Potential Transportation Considerations: Presents a range of potential 

management actions to improve transportation conditions at the Glacier area. 

6. Conclusion: Presents a summary of the strategies that best meet KEFJ’s 

transportation goals and a list of potential next steps. 

Purpose of this Study 

The purpose of the Exit Glacier Area Transportation Feasibility Study is to evaluate the 

current transportation conditions at the Exit Glacier Area – including parking lot

congestion and multi-modal access – and evaluate the feasibility of a range of potential 

infrastructure, operations, or traveler information actions to improve transportation 

conditions. These may include parking lot reconfiguration, enhanced transit service, and 

other potential infrastructure or operational changes. The purpose of this study is to guide 

the park in determining the best options for managing congestion while meeting park goals

and visitor needs at the Exit Glacier Area. 

When KEFJ initially requested technical assistance, the intended task was to conduct a 

transit feasibility study with the aim of alleviating congestion at the Nature Center parking 

lot. However, through discussions with park staff it became clear that transit is one of 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 5 
 

multiple potential strategies to managing congestion that may be appropriate for the Area. 

As a result, this study will discuss the following range of considerations: 

• Parking Lot Infrastructure/Management (e.g., realignment/expansion or operations) 

• Transit 

• Multi-modal Transportation 

• Data Needs 

• Visitor Information 

• Partnerships 

Because many of these elements are interrelated, KEFJ may ultimately decide to pursue an

approach that draws on multiple consideration areas. 

KEFJ’s Desired Transportation Conditions 

KEFJ staff articulated the following desired conditions for Exit Glacier Area transportation: 

• Safety for visitors of all transportation modes and KEFJ staff in the Nature Center 

parking lot and along Herman Leirer Road. 

• Access for all visitors regardless of mode or vehicle type. 

• Capacity to meet visitor transportation needs. 

• Financial sustainability of infrastructure, maintenance, and operations to ensure 

long-term success. 

• Environmental sustainability with minimized impacts to sensitive resources. 

• Positive visitor experience for visitors with a range of recreational opportunities. 

The park should evaluate the potential actions presented in this report based on how well

they support these desired conditions. 

Figure 1: Visitors to Exit Glacier 

Source: Volpe 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 6 
 

 

 

 

 

KEFJ Overview and Setting 

Park Foundation Statement 

Kenai Fjords National Park was established in 1980 by the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act, with the purpose to preserve the scenic and environmental integrity of 

an interconnected icefield, glacier, and coastal fjord ecosystem.1 To fulfill this purpose, the

park “provides opportunities to experience, understand, and appreciate the scenic and wild 

values of the Harding Icefield, its outflowing glaciers, coastal fjords, and wildlife and to 

comprehend environmental change in a human context.” Transportation access to the Exit 

Glacier Nature Center and trails network is a crucial element to support the park’s

founding purpose. 

Park Location 

KEFJ covers 1,760 square miles on the Figure 2: Kenai Fjords National Park is located Kenai Peninsula in south-central Alaska, approximately 130 miles south of Anchorage. near the City of Seward (Figure 2). Seward Source: NPS, Volpe 

is the southern terminus of both the Alaska 

Railroad and the 127-mile Seward Highway 

National Scenic Byway, and is Alaska’s only 

deep-water, ice-free port with rail,

highway, and air transportation2 

connections to Alaska’s interior and major 

urban population centers. Located 130

miles south of Anchorage at the head of 

Resurrection Bay on the southern shore of

the Kenai Peninsula, Seward is a gateway 

community to Kenai Fjords National Park, 

Caines Head State Recreation Area, and 

Chugach National Forest. Depending on the 

mode of travel and current traffic and 

weather conditions, the road trip via road

between Seward and Anchorage takes

between 2 and 3 hours. 

The city of Seward has approximately 2,800 

year-round residents, and substantially

increases in population during the warmer 

months as the service economy swells to

meet the needs of visitors. The area attracts 

thousands of travelers, many as part of 

organized tours and cruises. Seward

receives approximately 1/5 of Alaska’s total 

1 NPS, 2013. Kenai Fjords National Park Foundation Statement: 

https://www.nps.gov/kefj/learn/management/upload/KEFJ_FoundationState_040413-508.pdf. 

2 Seward’s airport only accommodates small-sized aircraft and does not have commercial air service. 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 7 
 

cruise passengers, and often has over 1,600 passengers a day booked on smaller boat tours

in the summer months. 

Visitors traveling to Seward by cruise ship or train arrive at the Dale R. Lindsay Alaska 

Railroad Intermodal Facility. The Facility is located within two miles of downtown Seward, 

and visitors can choose to travel this distance via foot, taxi, or the town’s free shuttle 

system. Due to the Exit Glacier Area’s distance from Seward (approximately 12 miles), 

travel schedules, organized tours, and limited transportation options, a number of people

travel to and from Seward without ever visiting the national park. 

During the warmer months, tourists and local residents visit KEFJ to take in the views of

the area’s fjords, glacial ice, and diverse wildlife. Local operators offer wildlife-viewing 

tours, including marine tours of the fjords by passenger-boats and kayaks, as well as 

helicopter tours and guided hiking tours. The park has had record visitation in recent years,

and has become a major source of economic activity in the region. 

Within KEFJ, visitation sites include the following areas: the Exit Glacier Area, Harding 

Icefield, and the coastal fjords (Figure 3). The only road access to the park is via Herman 

Leirer Road, which provides access to the Exit Glacier Nature Center and trails to Exit

Glacier and the Harding Icefield. 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 8 
Figure 3: NPS Map of Kenai Fjords National Park 

Source: Kenai Fjords 

E xit Glacier Area and Harding Icefield 

The Exit Glacier Area is located a short distance (8.2 miles) from off Seward Highway via

Herman Leirer Road. Because Herman Leirer Road provides the only road access to the 

park, the Exit Glacier Area is the primary visitation site, and the Nature Center parking lot 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 9 
 

is a crucial access node for visitors to experience the park’s natural resources, interpretive

programs, and trails. Figure 4 highlights the area of focus for this transportation study. 

Figure 4: Map of trail to Exit Glacier 

Source: Kenai Fjords 

Visitation to the Exit Glacier Area averages approximately 165,000 visitors per year. In the 

Exit Glacier Area, there are activities for visitors of all ages and abilities – including

interpretive displays and programs at the Exit Glacier Nature Center, a wheelchairaccessible trail to an Exit Glacier viewing area, a moderate trail to an overlook of the 

glacier, or a more advanced trail to the Harding Icefield. From the parking lot, it is 

approximately a one-mile walk for visitors to reach Exit Glacier. The Nature Center (the 

park’s visitor center in the Exit Glacier Area) is typically open from Memorial Day to Labor

Day. Visitors to the Exit Glacier Area typically stay for 1-2 hours, while hikers on the

Harding Icefield Trail typically stay all day. 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Related Planning Efforts 

Pa rk General Management Plan 

The Kenai Fjords National Park General Management Plan (1984) specified that the only

road to be constructed in KEFJ would be in the Exit Glacier Area. It also specified that the 

NPS did not intend to provide federally funded transportation services in the park, but 

instead to coordinate with public and private transportation services to provide access to

the park and to maximize opportunities for viewing and using the park. 

KEFJ Herman Leirer Multi-modal Trail Feasibility Study/Environmental Assessment 

In 2013, KEFJ conducted a feasibility study and an environmental analysis for a future

Herman Leirer Road multi-modal trail. The study focused on the feasibility of a multi-use 

trail (bicycle, pedestrian and ski) to extend along the Herman Leirer Road, starting from 

the Seward Highway and ending at the Exit Glacier Nature Center in Kenai Fjords National

Park. The proposed trail would pass through public lands and right-of-ways managed by the 

State of Alaska, United States Forest Service (FS), and NPS, and the environmental 

assessment analyzed the impacts of different trail routing concept alternatives. The 

document emphasized that there was not a funded project to construct any of the proposed 

alternatives, but that the document would serve as a common vision for state, federal, and 

local agencies as well as organizations to pursue funding for such a project. This document 

was a culmination of various interagency discussions that had occurred over the years. 

Supporting this concept were also two local resolutions, City of Seward Resolution 2013-

042 and Kenai Peninsula Borough Resolution 2013-052, to support the multi-modal trail. 

Various members of the City of Seward and vicinity brought up the value of this type of 

trail for the community in this current transportation study. 

KEFJ Exit Glacier Frontcountry Management Plan 

KEFJ is currently developing a frontcountry management plan for the Exit Glacier Area. To 

inform the plan, the park is considering a range of scenarios for the Exit Glacier Area,

based on potential visitation trends and possible extent of the Exit Glacier terminus. 

This planning effort recognizes that there is substantial uncertainty about the future of the 

Exit Glacier Area: 

• Exit Glacier and Surrounding Landscape: Exit Glacier has retreated for over a 

century, and as of 2017, it has receded over 441 meters since the last Exit Glacier 

Area Management Plan in 2004. The rate and extent of glacial retreat will continue 

to transform the landscape of the Exit Glacier Area and may impact the nature of 

future visitation. 

• Visitation: Visitation has increased substantially since the 1990s, but with some 

fluctuations, including a downturn coinciding with the economic recession of the 

late 2000s. Visitation may continue to increase. However, the future extent of the 

Exit Glacier may also influence future visitation. 

The park’s Frontcountry Management Plan effort is using a scenario planning approach to 

consider the range of potential futures for visitation and glacial retreat in the area and

developing a suite of “management actions of no regret,” which would be appropriate

under a range of future conditions. 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 11 
 

 

 

 

This Frontcountry Management Plan, which will follow the scenario planning report, is

expected to be complete in 2020-2021. The strategies KEFJ develops for frontcountry 

recreation at Exit Glacier will have implications for the area’s transportation needs. In 

addition, the primary areas of uncertainty addressed in the scenario report leading into the

Frontcountry Management Plan are relevant for future transportation actions, as well. 

Although this transportation report does not use scenario planning to evaluate potential

transportation solutions, it does note how some solutions may fare under different 

visitation scenarios, as relevant. This report also focuses on a range of scalable solutions

that can be implemented or adjusted as visitation fluctuates. 

Ci ty of Seward Planning Efforts 

The City of Seward does not have a transportation plan, but the City of Seward’s 2030 

Comprehensive Plan Update has the following goals related to transportation: 

• Provide safe and efficient vehicular transportation facilities that meet the needs of the 

community. 

• Expand and maintain existing sidewalks and the multi-purpose trail system in order 

to provide safe, fully accessible, pedestrian pathways through the city. 

• Improve the usability of the state-owned airport. 

During the project team’s site visit, City staff also expressed an interest in convening a 

community transportation advisory committee to make progress on the City’s

transportation goals. This committee may be an opportunity for KEFJ to coordinate with the 

City of Seward, the port, and other local transportation stakeholders to enhance 

transportation access to the Exit Glacier Area. 

Seward Marine Terminal Expansion Master Plan 

The Alaska Railroad Company (ARRC) owns and manages the Seward Marine Terminal, 

which provides an intermodal transportation connection for passengers and freight – 

including cruise ships and the Alaska Railroad. The land reserve comprises 328 acres, and 

in 2016 the site served 65,000 train passengers and 185,000 cruise ship passengers, as 

well as tens of thousands of tons of freight.1 The Dale R. Lindsay Alaska Railroad Seward

Intermodal Facility is part of the Seward Marine Terminal. 

1 Alaska Railroad Company, August 2017. Seward Marine Terminal Expansion Planning: Master Plan. 

https://www.alaskarailroad.com/sites/default/files/Communications/MASTER_PLAN.pdf. 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 12 
Figure 5: Visitors Wait Outside the Alaska Railroad Seward Intermodal Facility 

Source: Volpe 

The ARRC began planning efforts for the port site in 2013 and published a Master Plan in 

August 2017. The Master Plan recommends a range of improvements, including passenger 

dock replacement, freight dock improvements, and terminal replacement. Through this 

process, there may be opportunities to coordinate with KEFJ and the City of Seward to

improve transportation connections for customers using the marine terminal. These 

improvements may also impact future visitation to KEFJ – for example by increasing the 

number of passengers disembarking in Seward who may visit the Exit Glacier Area.

Alternatively, this plan may help the cruise ship companies and Alaska Railroad increase 

the efficiency of connections so that visitors spend less time in Seward or KEFJ. These

changes may also impact the feasibility of some of the transit scenarios considered below. 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 13 
 

 

 

 

Existing Conditions 

Transportation Access to the Exit Glacier Area 

The Exit Glacier Area is accessible via Herman Leirer Road, commonly known as Exit 

Glacier Road. The route between Seward and the Nature Center parking lot extends 

approximately 12.2 miles. From Seward, vehicles drive about 3.5 miles north on Highway 9

(the Seward Highway), before connecting to Herman Leirer Road and traveling west for 8.2 

miles. The first 7.3 miles of Herman Leirer Road are State of Alaska right-of-way and are 

operated and maintained by the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities

(ADOT&PF). The road passes through land managed by several partners, including the 

Alaska Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. FS. NPS manages the remaining 0.9

miles of the road and surrounding land. The drive from Seward takes approximately 20 to 

30 minutes, but can vary based on weather conditions. The road is paved, and there are no 

significant hills or grade changes along the route. Weather conditions may vary 

significantly along the route due to the surrounding topography, making it possible for it to

be raining, snowing, or sleeting at one point on the road but not another. 

The road closes to cars seasonally, typically from the arrival of snow in mid-November 

until it thaws in early May. In late fall, flooding and heavy rain can cause road closures due

to dangerous, icy conditions. Limited hours of daylight in the fall and winter also influence

roadway use and make visitation much more common on weekends than weekdays. 

Figure 6: The route from Seward to the Exit Glacier Area extends 3.5 miles on Route 9 (The Seward Highway) 

a nd 8.2 miles on Herman Leirer Road. It is the only point of entry to the park accessible by personal vehicle. 

Source: NPS, Volpe 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 14 
 

 

 

 

Na ture Center Parking Lot: Existing Conditions 

The Exit Glacier Nature Center and parking lot serve as the terminus of Herman Leirer

Road. The final mile of the two-lane access route to the Exit Glacier Area was recently 

elevated and repaved, and many drivers travel faster than the 35 mph posted speed limit.

The speed limit reduces to 15 mph at the entry to the parking lot, as the road narrows and 

begins the one-way loop. Within the parking lot signage directs buses, RVs, and cars to 

different locations. Each parking lot provides directional parking for easy entry and exit. If

parking is not available on the first pass through the lot, there is a turnaround lane to loop

through another time. 

Figure 7: The Parking Lot Directing Buses to the Right, and Other Vehicles to the Left 

Source: Volpe 

Coach buses are directed to the right towards parking on the perimeter of the parking lot 

for safe loading and/or unloading of passengers. Sidewalk access to the Nature Center from

the bus parking area is conflict-free and does not require crossing lanes of traffic or 

traversing parking areas. 

Car and RV drivers access their respective parking areas via the driveway to the left in the 

photo above (Figure 6). Previous efforts to simplify wayfinding have left markings and

signage limited and understated, and some drivers show signs of confusion when looking 

for parking. During the busiest times, the informal parallel parking along the entry 

roadway shoulders may increase confusion. Visitors see this non-designated parking when 

first entering the lot, which may be interpreted as an unmanaged system and suggest that 

visitor parking is permitted wherever space is available. In order to address this, the park 

has implemented parking assistants to direct traffic and help visitors find parking that does

not impede the flow of traffic or cause safety concerns. 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 15 
 

 

Figure 8: Bus Parking is Located along the Perimeter of the Parking Lot 

Source: Volpe 

The parking lot is approximately 208,000 square feet and contains the following: 

• 71 spaces for passenger vehicles (10 feet x 20 feet each) 

• 24 spaces for RVs (17 feet x 44 feet each) 

• 6 short-term spaces for tour buses and shuttles 

• 4 passenger vehicle spaces reserved for ADA accessibility and two (2) 10-minute 

passenger loading and unloading. 

Figure 9: Aerial view of Kenai Fjords parking lot from the 2015 Parking Lot Signing and Striping Plan. Parking lot 

entrance is on the right, and the Nature Center is located off to the left. Shaded areas in the upper left indicate 

spaces reserved for bus parking. 

Source: FHWA WFL, Volpe 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 16 
 

 

 

According to KEFJ staff, the parking lot often experiences congestion, particularly in the 

summer months from about 10 am to 3 pm. The project team also observed substantial

congestion during the site visit. Typical conditions in the parking lot include: 

• Both the RV parking area and the car area at or over-capacity. Car parking fills 

early and cars begin parking in the RV area, reducing the number of spaces 

available for RVs 

• Dozens of cars and RVs park along the road shoulders 

• Parking starts to occur along the perimeter of the parking areas 

• The entrance and exit lanes are blocked by cars parking along Herman Leirer Road 

outside of the parking lot 

Figure 11: Overflow Vehicle Parking on the Road Figure 10: Spillover Car and RV Parking at the Nature 

Shoulder Entering the Nature Center Parking Lot Center Parking Lot 

Source: Volpe Source: Volpe 

T ransit Access to the Exit Glacier Area 

Almost all independent travelers that arrive at the Exit Glacier Area not part of an

organized tour group appear to have access to a personal vehicle. However, there are a few 

additional ways to visit the Exit Glacier Area in the summer that do not require a personal 

vehicle. Transit ridership levels are generally dependent upon the presence of cruise ships

in port; with the expected addition of cruise ships and small boat tours that spend multiple 

days in Seward, the number of visitors without a personal vehicle may increase. 

Exit Glacier Shuttle 

The privately-run Exit Glacier Shuttle provides transportation service between downtown

Seward and the Exit Glacier Area from late May to September, through a commercial use 

authorization. The information below is current as of summer 2018. The shuttle leaves 

downtown Seward (1013 3rd Avenue) and the Small Boat Harbor hourly between 8:30am

(Friday-Sunday) or 9:30am (Monday-Thursday) and 3:30pm. Return trips from Exit Glacier 

Nature Center occur on the hour from 11am to 5pm. Shuttle trips can be pre-booked online 

(approximately 20% of trips), or in person at one of two Exit Glacier Guides offices located

in Seward. 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 17 
 

 

 

 

 

The shuttle operator requires riders to schedule their return trip prior to departure for two 

reasons: 

1. There is no cell phone service at the Exit Glacier Nature Center, so riders cannot 

contact the shuttle operator from the park; and 

2. The operator wants to avoid exceeding capacity on any return trip, especially if it 

would lead to riders stranded at the park at the end of the day or requiring the 

operator to run an unscheduled, “dead-head” trip to pick up excess passengers. 

The shuttle costs $15 round trip. For $40, the company offers hiking guides with

interpretive services, through Exit Glacier Guides. 

Other Access Options to the Exit Glacier Area 

In addition to the Exit Glacier shuttle, there are the following ways to reach the Exit 

Glacier Area without a personal vehicle: 

• Local taxis 

o KEFJ offers a list of local taxi services on their website. 

• Private bus tours 

o In addition to the tours offered by the shuttle services already listed, visitors 

can access the Exit Glacier Area through private bus tours leaving from 

Anchorage or Seward. These tours often include interpretive services. Many 

cruise ship and small boat tour passengers have the option of taking a tour 

bus to the Exit Glacier Area as an on-shore excursion during their time in 

Seward. 

• Multi-modal access to the Exit Glacier Area 

o Some visitors and local residents access the Exit Glacier Area by bicycle, 

hiking, or running along Herman Leirer Road. However, there is currently no 

dedicated bicycle or pedestrian infrastructure, so non-motorized users travel 

in the road shoulder. Several Seward residents expressed concerns that they 

do not feel safe biking or walking on Herman Leirer Road in the summer due 

to traffic volumes and vehicle speeds and expressed interest in development 

of a separated multi-use path. 

Winter Access to the Exit Glacier Area 

During winter, ADOT&PF closes the first gate and does not maintain Herman Leirer Road

for vehicular traffic past this point. The focus of this transportation study is summer 

transportation to the Exit Glacier Area, so this report does not go into depth on winter 

transportation issues. However, it is important to note that winter snow cover and spring

season plowing have implications for the range of potential roadway and parking lot 

treatments that are appropriate. For example, KEFJ should select designs for parking lot

infrastructure such as speed bumps that can survive annual plowing. 

During the winter season, visitors may access the Exit Glacier Area by winter 

transportation modes, including snow machine, cross-country ski, snowshoe, fat bike, or 

dog sled. The 2012 Kenai Fjords National Park Over-the-Snow Transportation Feasibility 

Study documents winter transportation conditions to the Exit Glacier Area. 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 18 
 

 

 

 

 

Use and Visitation 

Between the Exit Glacier Area and coastal areas of the park, Kenai Fjords as a whole 

attracts approximately 300,000 visitors annually, with the large majority visiting between

the months of May and September. The park had a record year for visitation in 2016, with

over 346,000 visitors (Figure 12). 

Figure 12: Kenai Fjords Annual Visitation, 1990-2017 

Source: NPS Visitor Use Statistics 

Kenai Fjords Annual Visitation 

0 

50,000 

100,000 

150,000 

200,000 

250,000 

300,000 

350,000 

400,000 

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 

Visitation to KEFJ is heavily concentrated in the summer months, with approximately 

100,000 visitors – or one-third of all visitors annually – arriving in the month of July.

Figure 13 shows that June, July, and August are peak visitation months, with lesser 

visitation in the shoulder season in May and September, and very few visitors in the winter

months. 

Figure 13: Kenai Fjords Monthly Visitation, 2015-2017 

Source: NPS Visitor Use Statistics 

Monthly Visitation at Kenai Fjords 

120,000 

100,000 

80,000 

60,000 

40,000 

20,000 

0 

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

2015 2016 2017 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 19 
 

 

 

 

Figure 14 shows traffic counts by month at the Exit Glacier parking lot. This graph shows

the number of vehicles entering the parking lot rather than the number of visitors, but its 

trends show a similar distribution, with peak visitation in the summer months. From 2013 

to 2018, the KEFJ parking lot visitation for June through August averaged 34,116 vehicles

per season. This averages to approximately 375 vehicles per day, although in reality peak 

days would have substantially more vehicles. Although KEFJ does not report daily traffic

counts, park staff and Seward community members report that visitation to the Exit Glacier

Area peaks on sunny days, when residents and visitors want to be outside. 

Figure 14: Traffic Counts at the Nature Center Parking Lot, 2013-2018 

Source: NPS Visitor Use Statistics 

Traffic Counts at Exit Glacier 

20,000 

18,000 

16,000 

14,000 

12,000 

10,000 

8,000 

6,000 

4,000 

2,000 

0 

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

Future Visitation Trends and Projections 

The City of Seward expects to see an increase in cruise ship visitation over the next several

years, based on industry projections and bookings. This includes an increase in the overall 

number of visitors from cruise ships and an increase in smaller cruise ships that overnight 

in Seward prior to transferring passengers to the Alaska Railroad, giving passengers

multiple days to explore KEFJ and Seward. The Port of Seward is also planning to expand 

their cruise ship dock to accommodate additional cruise ships. Although Kenai Fjords is just 

one attraction in the Seward area, it is reasonable to expect an increase in visitation to the 

Exit Glacier Area as a result. These visitors would likely visit the area via a shuttle or tour

bus. 

In the long term, cruise ship visitation tends to fluctuate based on national economic 

conditions.1 As discussed above, KEFJ is conducting a scenario planning analysis for its Exit

Glacier Frontcountry Management Plan that considers a range of increasing and decreasing 

visitation given the uncertainty inherent in projecting long-term visitation trends and the 

1 Alaska Federal Lands Long-Range Transportation Plan. 2012. Appendix B: Visitation Trends Technical 

Report. https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/flpp/lrtp/documents/ak-lrtp-appendices.pdf#page=39. 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 20 
 

 

 

need to consider a range of potential management conditions. However, it is reasonable to

expect increasing visitation and resultant parking congestion in the short- to medium-term. 

Site Visit Summary 

From August 6-10, 2018, the project team of NPS, WFL, and Volpe staff conducted a site 

visit to Seward and the Exit Glacier Area. During this site visit, the project team observed 

transportation conditions and conducted a series of meetings with community members

(summarized below). 

The project team conducted the following site observations: 

• A visit to the Nature Center parking lot on a sunny afternoon, Monday, August 7. 

During this visit, the project team observed parking demand well in excess of 

supply, with dozens of passenger cars and RVs parked along the road shoulder and 

other vehicles circling to find a parking spot. The project team spoke to the two 

parking lot attendants on site to hear their experiences and observations from the 

summer season. 

• Observations of transportation conditions in downtown Seward, including signage 

and wayfinding for visitors. The team observed that although there is abundant 

information for visitors to Seward, a more unified approach to visitor information 

and wayfinding may improve visitor knowledge of transit and other transportation 

options. 

• The project team rode the full route of the free Seward shuttle that circulates 

around Seward. During this ride, the project team observed that the shuttle was 

used but not overly crowded, with approximately 20 riders of all ages, including 

residents and visitors staying in Seward RV and tent camping areas. 

• Observation of the Seward cruise ship terminal during passenger debarkation to 

observe the transfer of cruise ship passengers onto transit, shuttle buses, and taxis. 

Information learned during this site visit is used throughout the analysis in this report. 

During the site visit, the project team also identified available data sources that support 

this analysis. 

Summary of Public Feedback 

During the August 6-10 site visit, the project team conducted a series of meetings with 

community members. The summary below reflects what the project team heard from

members of the community throughout the site visit. The project team has not verified the 

accuracy of these statements but provides them as a summary of public input in this initial

project phase. 

These comments were gathered from various meetings with community members,

including: 

• NPS Kenai Fjords National Park Public Meeting (August 8, 2018) 

• Seward Chamber of Commerce Meeting (August 10, 2018) 

The project team gathered additional input from individuals and conversations with 

community members in Seward, including NPS staff, city staff, business owners, 

transportation operators, tour operators, and others. 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 21 
 

 

 

Current Transportation Service 

• Community members are aware of the town shuttle system, but expressed a desire 

for more information regarding the route and schedule. 

• Business owners operating tour and shuttle services stated that their services are 

rarely fully booked. This generally occurs only a handful of days per year. 

Seward Area Considerations 

• Community members are interested in a shuttle option between the town and the 

Nature Center parking lot, in order to increase access for tourists and residents 

alike. Residents reported a need to enhance the connection between the two, as they 

rarely visit the park despite the great resources it provides. 

• Many business owners expressed a desire to ensure that transportation throughout 

town and to/from the Exit Glacier Area is a positive experience for visitors. 

• A community member expressed the desire to ensure both residents and business 

owners benefit from whatever transportation solutions are implemented. 

• Some residents noted that a side benefit of expanded transit access to the Exit 

Glacier Area could be greater access for local children who do not have cars. They 

noted that the free shuttle service around Seward has improved mobility options for 

local children. 

• Community members are very concerned about the availability of data. Multiple 

individuals expressed a desire to see data-based justifications for any changes to the 

Exit Glacier Area transportation access. 

Herman Leirer Road Uses 

• Many community members are interested in increased multi-modal options along 

the corridor to the park, particularly biking. Biking has grown as a form of both 

transportation and recreation in the town over recent years. 

• Herman Leirer Road is closed to vehicular traffic during the winter and early spring. 

Community members mentioned that they take full advantage of this corridor during 

this time, traveling it via snow machine, skis, snowshoes, bike, foot, and more. 

• Community members indicated that they feel unsafe traveling the road by bike or on 

foot, due to the speeds at which vehicular traffic travels. 

• Several community members asked about the status of a proposed multi-modal trail 

along Herman Leirer Road and expressed their support for the proposal. 

Nature Center Parking Lot Uses 

• The appropriate level of RV parking space in the Nature Center parking lot was an 

area of disagreement among community members. Some community members 

expressed interest in reducing or eliminating RV spaces in the parking lot, as this 

would likely provide sufficient parking for other vehicles. However, others felt very 

strongly that KEFJ should not “discriminate against” RV drivers by eliminating RV 

spaces and should be careful to accommodate access needs for all users. 

• One business owner wondered if there is a better way to manage motor coaches and 

asked whether KEFJ could require them to park in a remote lot rather than take 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 22 
 

space in the Nature Center parking lot while their passengers visit the Exit Glacier 

Area. 

• One community member expressed willingness to sacrifice some of the natural 

landscaping in and around the parking lot in order to increase the lot’s footprint and 

accommodate more vehicles. 

Anticipated Changes Affecting Transportation 

• Community members expressed concerns over the town’s ability to handle the 

anticipated increase in cruise ship traffic in the future. More ships are expected, and 

some will now begin docking overnight. This will require increased transportation 

services to move these additional visitors throughout town and to the park. 

• One community member stated that there is a new RV park under construction on 

Herman Leirer Road. This may increase the number of RVs traveling to the Exit 

Glacier Area and looking for parking, or may provide an opportunity for RV parking 

nearby but outside of the park entrance, freeing up additional spaces in the parking 

lot. 

Suggestions for Transportation Solutions 

• A business owner suggested that any proposed shuttle solution should seek to 

minimize the number of stops on the way to the park, as the complexity of moving 

people increases with every additional stop added to the route. 

• Community members expressed an interest in multiple route options for a shuttle 

service to the park. There may be an opportunity to build upon the existing town 

shuttle route so that only one stop takes people directly to the Exit Glacier Area. 

• There are several parking lots that are not fully utilized throughout town; multiple 

community members recommended taking advantage of these lots as a “park and 

ride” option for visitors to park in and take the shuttle to the Exit Glacier Area. 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 23 
Exit Glacier Area Transportation Problem Statements 

The project team developed the following problem statements based on observations during 

the August 2018 site visit and review of existing data. These problem statements are meant

to articulate the primary issues affecting transportation access to the Exit Glacier Area and 

will inform the discussion of potential considerations for improving access in the next

section. 

Na ture Center Parking Lot 

• Current capacity of the Nature Center parking lot is not sufficient to handle peak 

demand for visitors, resulting in unsafe conditions, additional demands for staffing, 

and degraded visitor experience. 

T ransit 

• Development of a transit service to access the Exit Glacier Area drives additional

challenges with regard to funding, operations and maintenance agreements, route 

development, scheduling and system infrastructure. Changes to potential transit 

business models could have community-wide impacts. 

Multi-modal Transportation 

• Residents and visitors would like the ability to utilize the Exit Glacier Area/Herman 

Leirer Road during all seasons. Heavy vehicle traffic makes the corridor unsafe 

during peak season, and encourages automobile only access. 

T ransportation Data 

• Additional vehicle and visitor information is required to determine current impacts

and understand demand for parking and transit both now and in the future. 

Available data does not provide clear summary of vehicle mix or circulation 

patterns. 

Information 

• Changes to the parking, operations, or development of a transit system must be 

marketed and shared appropriately and consistently. Lack of a mobile phone

network or connectivity in the Park complicates the ability to provide real-time 

traffic, parking and transit information to park users. 

Pa rtnerships 

• There is not currently a comprehensive, collaborative effort focused on 

transportation needs in the community. Numerous individual efforts to access the 

park and improve transportation in the region can be leveraged to enhance the 

existing network, but requires a lead agency or organization. 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 24 
 

Potential Considerations to Improve Transportation Access to the Exit Glacier 

Area 

Because of the complex nature of the congestion and access challenges at the Exit Glacier 

Area, the project team identified a range of potential strategies to help the park achieve its

desired transportation conditions, as stated in the Introduction. These include safety, 

access, capacity, financial sustainability, environmental sustainability, and a positive

visitor experience. 

This section reviews the following categories of strategies and considerations to achieve

the parks’ desired transportation conditions: 

• Parking Lot Infrastructure/Management (e.g., realignment/expansion or operations) 

• Transit 

• Multi-modal Transportation 

• Data Needs 

• Visitor Information 

• Partnerships 

This section analyzes the strengths, challenges, and potential implications of potential

strategies associated with each of these categories. Because many of these elements are 

interrelated, KEFJ may ultimately decide to pursue an approach that draws on multiple 

consideration areas. 

There are also a few key resources that the park can use to brainstorm options and learn

about notable practices from other parks or transportation agencies, which cross-cut topic

areas. These include: 

• NPS Congestion Management Toolkit: Developed by NPS, this Toolkit currently 

features 59 tools and a process to identify congestion problems and mitigate them. 

The toolkit can be used by parks, partners, and/or consultants. 

• FHWA Traffic Calming ePrimer: This ePrimer presents a thorough review of current 

traffic calming practice and contains information needed to understand this complex 

field. This resource includes information and examples from rural contexts, which 

would be particularly relevant for KEFJ. 

Nature Center Parking Lot: Infrastructure and Parking Management 

The Nature Center parking lot does not have the capacity to accommodate demand on peak

visitation days in the summer. Although expansion of the parking lot may be a long-term 

consideration, the park should consider a range of less costly measures to realize 

efficiencies within the existing footprint. 

Circulation Patterns 

Currently, cars and RVs both turn left at the first junction within the parking lot, while 

buses turn right. This is counter to most campgrounds and rest areas, which separate small

automobiles and large vehicles. A redesign that combines bus and RV circulation could

reduce confusion, separate cars, and eliminate a conflict point. 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 25 
 

S afety/Traffic Calming 

Additional traffic calming, striping and signage would help to slow entering vehicles and

reduce confusion. An entrance gate can provide visitor information and communicate to 

visitors that they are entering the park. A manned gate is likely not necessary, as an empty

booth is expected to elicit slowing on its own. Electronic speed signs, landscaped islands, 

speed tables, and narrower lanes should all be considered as possible measures to be 

implemented in unison with an entrance gate. Directional arrows on the pavement and

pictograms instead of text communicate intent quicker and more clearly for international

visitors. Speed markings on the pavement may also aid in reducing speeds. 

Pa rking Configuration 

KEFJ could consider small, phased changes to the parking lot configuration to achieve 

additional parking capacity. For example, during peak visitation times drivers often park 

informally along the gravel shoulder along the edges of the parking lot. A gravel glue or

stabilizer could be applied to ensure that the gravel surface does not deteriorate or erode 

rapidly. Ensuring the integrity of the gravel shoulder will also protect the edges of the 

pavement from breaking off. Painted lane lines at the edge of pavement may ensure that

visitors are parked off the roadway and provide adequate roadway clearance. 

Many of these spaces could be paved to create more formal parking spots and to reduce 

safety hazards and resource impacts from parking along the gravel shoulder. Such an 

improvement would necessitate an expansion of the existing footprint, and formalizing

these spaces would still require road shoulder for safety and drainage. 

If formalized, KEFJ should also add a walkway for visitors to walk from their vehicles to 

the Nature Center. Pedestrians walking on the roadway provide the benefit of traffic 

calming, but at the risk of visitor safety. KEFJ should also consider additional temporary or

trial measures that change the mix of spaces, add short-term parking, or reduce RV spaces 

to increase the overall vehicle capacity of the parking lot. More specifically, conversion of

RV parking to passenger vehicle parking is a possible trial option. 

Operations 

In the past few years, KEFJ has hired part-time, seasonal parking attendants to direct cars 

to open spaces. The park reported that the parking attendants have been successful in

managing parking congestion and optimizing the efficiency of the parking lot. Given the 

success of this practice, KEFJ should continue to hire seasonal parking attendants. KEFJ

should consider developing a traffic management plan at the beginning of the season to 

support these attendants, and hold end-of-season debriefs to evaluate lessons learned for

future seasons. 

To aid the parking attendants, KEFJ could also redesign existing signage to be more clear

for visitors. One suggestion is to use graphics, such as types of vehicles, as well as text; this

will help convey directions to non-English-speaking visitors. 

Capacity Expansion 

A more substantial expansion of the lot may eventually be necessary if the site continues to

experience growth in visitors. The existing parking lot including pavement, sidewalks and 

vegetation is 208,000 square feet (4.88 acres). It is estimated that the parking capacity

could be doubled by taking advantage of the existing circulation and adding an additional 

108,000 square feet (2.5 acres) of parking area. Further design analysis will be needed to 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

determine if such an estimate is accurate. A capacity study for the Exit Glacier Area should

be performed before undertaking an expansion to create a better understanding of the

number of spaces that may be necessary. 

Transit Considerations 

The purpose of this section is to consider ways to use transit to meet park visitor’s 

transportation needs, as well as the park’s goals, via existing service or other business

models. 

Transit service between Seward and the Exit Glacier Area is currently available through a 

private company, and service around town is available through the City of Seward. A 

potential modified or expanded transit service to the area could serve two main purposes: 

• Providing access to the park via a means other than personal vehicle; and 

• Reducing vehicle and parking congestion at the Nature Center parking lot during 

peak hours. 

This analysis will examine two potential service concepts to address these: 

• Concept 1: A shuttle service to move visitors between downtown Seward and the 

Exit Glacier Area 

• Concept 2: A park-and-ride service to transport visitors to the Exit Glacier Area from 

an overflow parking lot along Herman Leirer Road. 

The shuttle service from Seward has the potential to meet both objectives (expanding 

access and reducing congestion), while the “park-and-ride” service focuses on reducing

vehicle and parking congestion without providing an alternative means to access the park 

for those without a personal vehicle. There are several key distinctions between the two

services: 

• Route: The shuttle service would have a fixed route between Seward and the Exit 

Glacier Nature Center, while the park-and-ride service would have a fixed route 

between one of several locations along Herman Leirer Road and the Exit Glacier 

Nature Center, discussed in detail below. 

• Scheduling and Frequency: For the shuttle service, visitors would plan their entire 

trip in advance, based on the posted schedule and a reservation. In this case, a 

reliable posted shuttle schedule is more important than frequency of service. Since 

the park and-ride service operates to transport visitors who cannot park at the 

Nature Center parking lot when it is full, visitors would not plan in advance to take 

the shuttle. Thus, frequency of service is important to ensure riders are not required 

to wait at an overflow lot for an extended period of time. 

• Capacity: Both options are likely to experience capacity challenges and “bunching” 

at the end of the day when visitors are leaving the park. Having return trips 

scheduled in advance could resolve this problem for the shuttle option, but the park 

would need to consider other solutions for the park-and-ride option to avoid 

excessive waiting. 

R outing and Cost Assumptions 

Several assumptions are made based on analyses of existing conditions and conversations

with park staff, business owners, and other stakeholders. The assumptions are as follows: 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 27 
 

 

 

• The average visitor to the Exit Glacier Area spends two hours at the site. Thus, a 

shuttle service should run at least once per hour in order to accommodate visitor 

schedules. 

• Peak hours for visitation are between 10:00 am and 3:00 pm. The parking lot is 

often full during these times. 

• A stop takes approximately 3 minutes, including passenger drop-off and pickup. 

• Transit operating schedules should allow for driver rest breaks and a half-hour 

lunch break. Some of the schedules below do not build driver breaks into the 

schedule, but KEFJ or the transit operator should consider adding scheduled breaks 

or using a relief driver to allow for driver breaks. 

• No passengers will be returning from the Nature Center prior to 11:00am, and no 

passengers will be departing Seward after 4:00pm. 

• KEFJ will not own or operate transit service to and from the park. Instead, NPS is 

interested in providing a business opportunity for a private business or partnership 

with the City of Seward. 

Concept 1: Shuttle from Seward to the Exit Glacier Area 

This concept presents a scenario for a transit shuttle from downtown Seward to the Exit 

Glacier Area. This concept would address both goals of reducing congestion and expanding 

non-personal vehicle access to the park. This concept is similar to the existing shuttle

service provided by Exit Glacier Shuttle, and serves as a point of comparison for analysis 

with the park-and-ride concept. Under this service concept, KEFJ could continue to work 

with the existing operator through the existing commercial use authorization (CUA) – a nochange scenario – or KEFJ and the City of Seward can consider ways to support or enhance 

service through marketing or incentives for visitors to use the shuttle. 

Table 1: Service Concept for a Shuttle between Seward and the Exit Glacier Area 

Source: Volpe 

Se rvice Concept Hours of Service (headways) Headway Vehicles 

R equired 

Total Daily 

Se rvice Hours 

Scenario 1: Full 

Route, 

1-Hour Headway 

Seward (to Exit Glacier): 

9:00 AM to 3:00 PM 

Exit Glacier (to Seward): 

10:30 AM to 5:30 PM 

1 hour 1 9 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 28 
 

 

Figure 15: Potential Shuttle Route between Downtown Seward and Nature Center 

Source: NPS, Volpe 

Route 

This route spans between downtown Seward and the Exit Glacier Nature Center. The dropoff/pickup location could be in downtown Seward or at a parking lot on the Seward 

Highway next to the Chamber of Commerce, located approximately 10 miles from the

Nature Center, or a 20-minute drive. 

Scheduling and Frequency 

This service would leave from downtown Seward starting at 9:00 AM and offer service to

the park until 3:00 PM. Return service would begin operating at 10:30 AM, with the last 

shuttle leaving the Nature Center at 5:30 PM. Regular, reliable headways are important for 

this service model to ensure visitors are able to access the park without excessive delay or

difficulty. 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 29 
 

 

 

 

Table 2: Sample Timetable for the Seward to the Exit Glacier Area Shuttle Concept 

Source: Volpe 

Leave 

Seward Lot 

Arrive at 

Na ture Center 

Leave Nature Center R eturn to 

Seward Lot 

Layover/Recovery 

9:00 am 9:20-9:25 am 9:30 am (deadhead) 9:50-9:55 am 00:05, until 10:00 am 

10:00 am 

5:00 pm 

(deadhead) 

10:20-10:25 am 

5:20-5:25 pm 

10:30 am 

5:30 pm 

10:50-10:55 am 

5:50-5:55 pm 

00:05, until 11:00 am 

00:05, until 5:00 pm 

Based on demand, less frequent service could be possible during non-peak hours in the

middle of the day, such as 1.5-hour headways. With greater demand, two vehicles could 

allow for 30-minute headways at peak hours, particularly to address the demand for return

trips at the end of the day. 

In order to maximize capacity and avoid turning away passengers, reservations should be

either required or recommended, with walk-ons available as capacity allows. For the return 

trip from the Exit Glacier Area back to Seward, reservations should be required to ensure 

all visitors are able to return to Seward prior to park closure at the end of the day. It is

possible to allow visitors to take an earlier return shuttle than previously scheduled, if

space allows. However, visitors should not expect to get on a later shuttle than scheduled. 

Concept 2: Park-and-Ride Shuttle for Congestion Management 

This concept presents a range of scenarios for a transit shuttle between the Exit Glacier 

Area and an overflow lot located along Herman Leirer Road. This concept addresses the 

goal of providing parking capacity when the Nature Center parking lot fills up, but visitors

would still need to drive to the overflow lot. No such park-and-ride service currently exists 

at the Exit Glacier Area. 

During the site visit in August 2018, the project team visually identified five locations along 

Herman Leirer Road that could potentially serve as overflow parking lots (Figure 16). These

are flat, open spaces that either serve as current parking lots or vehicle pull-offs. The 

project team has not evaluated the feasibility of these lots in terms of size or design. In 

addition, several of these locations are not on NPS-owned land, so they would require

partnerships with other landowners along the road corridor. 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 30 
 

Figure 16: Potential Sites for a Park-and-ride Lot along Herman Leirer Road 

Source: NPS, Volpe 

Route 

The locations considered for the potential overflow sites are as follows: 

• Forest Service Resurrection River Trailhead Lot 

o Distance: 1.6 mi from Nature Center, approximately 5-minute drive 

o Owned by: U.S. Forest Service 

o Challenges: This lot serves as the trailhead for the Resurrection River Trail, 

and overflow parking could conflict with this use. This lot would require a 

partnership with the Chugach National Forest. 

• Resurrection River Pullout 

o Distance: 1.9 mi from Nature Center, approximately 5-minute drive 

o Owned by: U.S. Forest Service 

o Challenges: This lot serves as a popular vista point for the Exit Glacier. 

Overflow parking could conflict with this use. This lot would require a 

partnership with the Chugach National Forest. 

• Pullout at Herman Leirer Road and Wilma Avenue 

o Distance: 7.4 mi from Nature Center, approximately 15-minute drive 

o Owned by: Alaska Department of Transportation 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 31 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o Challenges: This lot would require a partnership with the landowner. It is 

also substantially farther from the Nature Center parking lot, so visitors 

would have to travel farther by bus, and the system would either have longer 

headways or require additional vehicles. 

• New RV Park site at 31851 Herman Leirer Road 

o Distance: 8.3 mi from Nature Center, approximately 15-minute drive 

o Owned by: Private land 

o Challenges: This lot would require a partnership with the landowner. It is 

also substantially farther from the Nature Center parking lot, so visitors 

would have to travel farther by bus, and the system would either have longer 

headways or require additional vehicles. 

During the site visit, the project team also considered the NPS campground site as a 

potential park-and-ride site. This site has the benefit of being close to the Nature Center

parking lot, and it is owned by NPS. However, the team did not include it in this analysis, 

because it determined that the lot is too small to be effective for overflow parking, which

would conflict with the existing use for the campground. 

The utility of a park-and-ride service decreases as the frequency of headways decreases and

distance from the Exit Glacier Area increases. Visitors will not likely want to wait at an 

overflow lot for a significant period of time, particularly if they were already travelling via 

personal vehicle. Thus, the Wilma Avenue and the New RV Park site may be less practical

given that they are almost as far as the downtown Seward shuttle option. 

Scheduling and Frequency 

Under the park-and-ride scenario, the shuttle would not run on a posted schedule, but 

prioritize frequency of service. Signage would include expected wait times between 

shuttles and current wait time (if real-time data is available). Service would ideally be

continuous, factoring in available vehicles and driver breaks. The service would likely run 

nonstop during peak hours, and on a more leisurely schedule during off-peak times, 

including driver breaks, etc. Timetables are just an estimate; the shuttle could achieve

faster headways by scheduling driver breaks for non-peak demand times where possible. 

Under this concept, visitors would arrive at the park-and-ride lot in their own vehicles, and 

will not have booked their trip ahead of time. Because of this, there may be peak times 

when the available service is not able to manage capacity. If this occurs and visitors are

required to wait significant amounts of time for transit service, the park will need to 

consider how this may affect the visitor experience, and how to manage sharply peaked

visitor demands. 

The project team has developed timetables for each of the potential locations for a parkand-ride lot (Table 3). For each site, there is a fastest possible and a more conservative 

sample timetable. The fastest possible timetable represents the fastest that a continuous

service is expected to be able to operate to meet peak demand, while the conservative 

estimates represent a slower pace that could be used for non-peak hours. These timetables 

are meant to serve as an example, but actual timing of the shuttle would vary based on

demand and the speed of a continuously running system during peak hours. Note that, 

given their proximity, this analysis assumes approximately the same timing and pairs 

together the two Forest Service lots and the Wilma Avenue Pullout and new RV park site,

respectively. 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 32 
 

 

 

 

 

Table 3: Service Concepts for Park-and-ride Shuttle between Various Potential Sites and Nature Center 

Source: Volpe 

Se rvice Concept Hours of Service (headways) Headway Vehicles 

R equired 

Total Daily 

Se rvice Hours 

Scenarios 1 & 2: 

Overflow Lot Shuttle 

at FS Resurrection 

River 

Trailhead/Resurrection 

River Pullout 

FS Resurrection River 

Trailhead/Resurrection River Pullout 

(to Exit Glacier): 

9:00 AM to 3:40 PM 

Exit Glacier (to Resurrection River 

Trailhead/Additional FS Lot): 

10:30 AM to 4:50 PM 

20 minutes 1 8.75 

FS Resurrection River 

Trailhead/Resurrection River Pullout 

(to Exit Glacier): 

9:00 AM to 3:00 PM 

Exit Glacier (to Resurrection River 

Trailhead/Additional FS Lot): 

11:15 AM to 5:15 PM 

30 minutes 1 8.75 

Scenarios 3 & 4: 

Overflow Lot Shuttle 

at Wilma Av/New RV 

Park Site 

Wilma Ave/New RV Park (to Exit 

Glacier) 

9:00 AM to 3:00 PM 

Exit Glacier (to Wilma Ave/New RV 

Park): 

11:20 AM to 4:40 PM 

40 minutes 1 8 

Wilma Ave/New RV Park Site (to Exit 

Glacier) 

9:00 AM to 3:00 PM 

Exit Glacier (to Wilma Ave/New RV 

Park Site): 

10:30 AM to 4:30 PM 

1 hour 1 8 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 33 
 

 

 

Scenarios 1 & 2: Forest Service Resurrection River Trailhead Lot/Resurrection River Pullout 

Figure 17: Potential Route from Forest Service Lots to Nature Center 

Source: NPS, Volpe 

Scenario 1 shows a service concept with one vehicle operating a route from an overflow lot

at the Resurrection River Trailhead or other Forest Service Lot to the Exit Glacier Area on 

20-minute headways, requiring 8.75 daily service hours. The 20-minute headway is 

considered the fastest possible route for this distance assuming a five-minute drive time

and five-minute layover time on each end. The first departure from downtown Seward is at 

9:00 AM, and the last departure is at 3:40 PM. The first departure from the Exit Glacier

Area is at 10:30 AM, and the last departure is at 4:50 PM. This frequent service allows for a

variety of visit lengths that should accommodate most visitors. 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 34 
Table 4: Fastest Possible Sample Schedule for Park-and-ride Shuttle between Forest Service Lots and Nature 

Center 

Source: Volpe 

Leave 

Forest 

Service Lot 

Arrive at 

Na ture 

Center 

La yover/ 

R ecovery 

Leave Nature Center R eturn to 

Forest 

Se rvice Lot 

La yover/Recovery 

9:00 9:05 00:05, until 

9:10 

9:10 (deadhead) 9:15 00:05, until 9:20 

Scenario 2 shows a more conservative timetable with one vehicle operating a route from an 

overflow lot at the Exit Glacier Campground to the Exit Glacier Area on 30-minute 

headways, requiring 8.75 daily service hours. The 30-minute headway is considered a more

conservative route for this distance assuming a five minute drive time and five to ten 

minute layover time on each end. The first departure from downtown Seward is at 9:00 

AM, and the last departure is at 3:00 PM. The first departure from the Exit Glacier Area is

at 11:15 AM, and the last departure is at 5:15 PM. This service allows for a variety of visit

lengths that should accommodate most visitors. 

Table 5: Conservative Sample Schedule for Park-and-ride Shuttle between Forest Service Lots and Nature 

Center 

Source: Volpe 

Leave 

Forest 

Service Lot 

Arrive at 

Na ture 

Center 

La yover/ 

R ecovery 

Leave Nature Center R eturn to 

Forest 

Se rvice Lot 

La yover/Recovery 

9:00 9:05 00:10, until 

9:15 

9:15 (deadhead) 9:20 00:10, until 9:30 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 35 
 

Scenarios 3 & 4: Wilma Avenue/New RV Park Site 

Figure 18: Potential Park-and-ride Shuttle Route from Wilma Ave/New RV Park Site to Nature Center 

Source: NPS, Volpe 

Scenario 3 details a service concept with one vehicle operating a route from an overflow lot 

at the Wilma Ave or New RV Park to the Exit Glacier Area on 45-minute headways, 

requiring eight daily service hours. The one-hour headway is considered the fastest 

possible route for this distance assuming a 15-minute drive time and five-minute layover 

time on each end. The first departure from downtown Seward is at 9:00 AM, and the last 

departure is at 3:00 PM. The first departure from the Exit Glacier Area is at 11:20 AM, and 

the last departure is at 4:40 PM. This service allows for a minimum visit length of 40

minutes, with visit lengths of one hour and 20 minutes or two hours likely to accommodate

most visitors. 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 36 
 

Table 6: Fastest Possible Sample Schedule for Park-and-ride Shuttle between Wilma Ave/New RV Park Site and 

Na ture Center 

Source: Volpe 

Leave Wilma 

Ave or New RV 

Pa rk 

Arrive at 

Na ture 

Center 

La yover/ 

R ecovery 

Leave Nature 

Center 

R eturn to Wilma 

Ave or New RV 

Pa rk 

La yover/Recovery 

9:00 9:15 00:05, until 

9:20 

9:20 

(deadhead) 

9:35 00:05, until 9:40 

Scenario 4 shows a more conservative timetable with two vehicles operating a route from

an overflow lot at the Exit Glacier Campground to the Exit Glacier Area on one-hour 

headways, requiring nine daily service hours. The 45-minute headway is considered a 

faster route for this distance assuming a 15-minute drive time and 35-minute layover time

at the shuttle lot. The first departure from the overflow lot is at 9:00 AM, and the last 

departure is at 3:00PM. The first departure from the Exit Glacier Area is at 10:30 AM, and

the last departure is at 4:30: PM. This allows for a minimum visit length of one hour, with

a one to two hour visit length accommodating most visitors. 

Table 7: Sample Schedule for Conservative Pace Park-and-ride Shuttle between Wilma Ave/New RV Park Site 

a nd Nature Center 

Source: Volpe 

Leave Forest 

Se rvice Lot 

Arrive at 

Na ture 

Center 

La yover/ 

R ecovery 

Leave 

Na ture 

Center 

R eturn to Forest 

Service Lot 

La yover/Recovery 

9:00 9:15 00:15, until 

9:30 

9:30 

(deadhead) 

9:45 00:15, until 10:00 

T ransit Business Models 

Overview 

There are several potential business models that by which KEFJ and/or a partner entity

could operate a transit shuttle to the Exit Glacier Area. This report defines a business 

model as the system that delivers an effective transportation offering to its users. This

particular system is comprised of several critical components. The following section 

presents the key business model components in the context of this study, which are based 

on the general business model components described in the Business Model Canvas1 and the 

1 Business Model Generation 

https://books.google.com/books?id=L3TnC7ZAWAsC&dq=business+model+canvas+osterwalder&lr= 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 37 
 

 

 

Value Mapping Tool.1 The project team has contextualized these components for the Exit

Glacier Summer Transportation Feasibility Study. 

Business Model Components 

Purpose 

Purpose is the reason why a particular organization, offering, service, or product exists. In 

the context of this study, the purpose of a KEFJ transportation offering is to provide public 

access to the Exit Glacier Area while protecting park resources. This purpose aligns with 

the KEFJ Foundation Statement presented in the KEFJ Overview and Setting section above.

Business models are complex systems that often involve the interests of multiple 

organizations and groups of people. An organization that designs a business model without 

thoroughly revisiting or establishing its purpose and that of its potential offering runs the 

risk of straying too far from its originally intended purpose and goals. 

Stakeholder Value Propositions 

Stakeholders are organizations and individuals that have an interest or stake in the 

transportation offering. Value propositions are the benefits that a transportation offering

may provide for its stakeholders. 

Value Propositions to User Segments

User segments are categories of park visitors with shared characteristics who adopt the 

transportation offering. Here we explore value propositions to user segments first for the

transit shuttle offering and then for the park-and-ride offering. 

For the transit shuttle, potential user segments include out-of-town visitors without access

or desire to drive, local visitors without access or desire to drive, and out-of-town or local 

visitors who learn pre-departure that the Nature Center lot is full. The following table 

offers specific examples of users within these user segments, as well as examples of

potential value propositions to each user segment. 

1 A value mapping tool for sustainable business modelling 

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/CG-06-2013-0078 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 38 
Table 8: Transit Shuttle Value Propositions to User Segments 

Source: Volpe 

U ser Segments Specific User Examples Value Propositions to User Segments 

Out-of-town visitors • Day visitors arriving to • Ability to access the park without the 

without access or Seward via cruise ship or hassle of acquiring a car (e.g., rental) or 

desire to drive railroad 

• RV drivers that want to leave 

their RV in its parking spot 

moving a parked vehicle 

• Comfortable and worry-free journey 

from origin to destination 

• Opportunity to fully take in the scenery 

• Opportunity to use journey time to 

prepare for Exit Glacier visit (e.g., review 

maps, adjust hiking boots, etc.) 

Local visitors/staff • Park staff interested in • Alternative transportation mode to 

without access or lowering personal GHGs lower personal GHG emissions 

desire to drive • School groups 

• Teenagers 

• Ability to visit the Exit Glacier Area 

without a vehicle or driver’s license 

• Opportunity to fully take in the scenery 

• Opportunity to use journey time to 

prepare for Exit Glacier arrival (e.g., use 

smart phone, review maps, etc.) 

Out-of-town or • Visitors who proactively seek • Time saved by opting for shuttle versus 

local visitors who info about the lot via phone, driving to Exit Glacier only to be turned 

learn pre-departure app, website away or circle for parking 

that the Nature • Visitors who receive • Ability to access Exit Glacier even 

Center lot is full information from their 

hotel/accommodation or 

from an ITS variable 

messaging sign that lot is full 

though the lot is full 

• Freed up bandwidth that would 

otherwise be used driving and parking 

For the park-and-ride service concept, potential user segments include out-of-town or local

visitors who learn pre- or post-arrival that the Nature Center lot is full. 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 39 
 

 

 

 

Table 9: Park-and-ride Value Propositions to User Segments 

Source: Volpe 

U ser Segments Specific User Examples Value Propositions to User Segments 

Out-of-town or local 

visitors who learn 

pre-arrival that the 

Nature Center lot is 

full 

• Visitors who proactively seek 

info about the lot via phone, 

app, website 

• Visitors who receive 

information from something 

like an ITS variable 

messaging sign 

• Time saved by opting for overflow 

parking lot and park-and-ride shuttle 

versus driving the extra distance only to 

be turned away or have difficulty 

parking 

Out-of-town or local 

visitors who learn 

post-arrival that the 

Nature Center lot is 

full 

• Visitors who are turned away 

at the parking lot entrance 

• Visitors who circle the lot 

unsuccessfully 

• Relief that they don’t have to park their 

vehicle in an unsafe way 

While brainstorming the value propositions to various user segments, it is important to 

realize that not all the value generated by the offering is positive. Each user segment will 

likely have some negative experiences that stem from the offering as well. It is important 

to think through those potential negative experiences while formulating value propositions. 

In the case of the park-and-ride for example, the service needs to be frequent enough to 

realize the value propositions presented above (e.g., time saved). If the service is too 

infrequent, users will likely be overwhelmed by negative experiences such as long waits.

The park-and-ride needs to be designed to truly create value for the visitors (i.e., meet

their needs). 

Value Propositions to Key Partners 

Key partners are the organizations and individuals that work directly with the park in

order to support a transportation offering. It is possible to imagine a number of different 

partners and value propositions to those partners. Tables 10and 11 list potential value 

propositions for partners below. 

Table 10: Transit Shuttle Value Propositions to Potential Key Partners 

Source: Volpe 

Key Partner Value Propositions to Key Partners 

Exit Glacier Guides • Potential opportunity to increase ridership for transit service 

• Potential for increased revenues 

New transit operator • Potential business opportunity 

City of Seward • Opportunity to enhance ridership of existing town transit shuttle 

• Opportunity to increase access to Exit Glacier for residents (improving 

quality of life) 

• Potential to enhance tourism experience in Seward, boost tourism 

economy 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 40 
 

 

 

 

Table 11: Park-and-ride Value Propositions to Key Partners 

Source: Volpe 

Key Partner Value Propositions to Key Partners 

Transit operator • Potential business opportunity 

Owner-operator Models 

There are several owner-operator models that are relevant for this study. Owner-operator 

models are typical ways that NPS chooses to partner with external entities or proceed

independently to deliver a transportation solution. Owner-operator models can be 

characterized based upon who is ultimately liable for providing service and who is liable 

for managing and covering associated costs. In general, park units should seek to minimize

their liabilities. Making investments in vehicles or other infrastructure, committing to pay 

for operations, committing to operate service, managing agreements, and monitoring

impacts to resources are all examples of potential liabilities and associated risk. The 

descriptions of the owner-operator models that are most relevant for the transit shuttle 

and the park-and-ride are provided here. 

Non-NPS-owned, Non-NPS-operated Commercial Use Authorization

CUAs are owner-operator models in which a unit approves a private entity to operate 

within park boundaries. The park may limit the private entity’s use with respect to 

location, time, and intensity, and the park may recover park costs directly attributable to

the private entity’s operations. CUAs may not limit the number of private operators in a 

park, and the park has no responsibility to demonstrate that the operation is a viable 

business opportunity. 

Setting up a CUA is simpler than setting up a concession contract (the next owner-operator 

model described). The private operator submits an application and annual application and 

maintenance fees, and the unit and the private operator agree on terms of use and cost 

recovery (current information on KEFJ CUA fees available here). Many parks choose not to

recover costs from CUAs, but if they do, they should document NPS costs resulting from the 

private operations. 

Advantages of a CUA are that the park makes no representation of a viable owner-operator 

model; the park is not liable for any costs other than its own; the park can recover its costs

related to the private operation; the CUA is relatively easy to set up; and the CUA allows

the park to limit use within the bounds of the natural resource capacities. 

Non-NPS-owned, Non-NPS-operated Concessions Contract 

NPS units seek concessions contracts when they want to limit the number of private

operators. Concessions contracts are usually long-term, lasting ten or more years, and 

parks may require concessionaires to compensate NPS with franchise fees for use of public

resources in their business ventures. 

Entering into concessions contracts requires a great deal of time and effort on the part of

NPS, thus this owner-operator model has a shared liability. A unit must write a business 

prospectus that makes the case that a business opportunity is viable. Private entities

submit competitive proposals, and NPS employees from other units and offices review and 

select the applications. After a concessionaire is chosen, the concessionaire must create a 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 41 
 

park-approved operating plan, and concessionaire operations are subject to annual

evaluation. The operating plan affords the park a great deal of control over how the

concessionaire operates within park boundaries, as long as both parties agree to the terms. 

From the NPS perspective, the advantages of concessions contracts are that they can limit 

private operators in the park; they generate franchise fees for the park; and they create no

capital or operating liabilities for the park. 

The disadvantages of concessions contracts are that they are complex and costly to set up

and they are only applicable to viable business ventures. 

The NPS website provides information about the law, regulation, and policy governing

concessions contracts on its Concessions: Law, Regulation, and Policy webpage. 

Non-NPS-owned, Non-NPS-operated Cooperative Agreement 

This owner-operator model exists when a park unit enters into a cooperative agreement

with a not-for-profit partner such as a regional transportation authority, a municipal 

government, a public transit system, or another partner to provide transportation to

visitors. Under this model, NPS shares liability with the partner for providing and/or 

paying for service. Cooperative agreements often involve the park helping fund capital, 

operations, and maintenance costs of the partner in exchange for transportation service.

This owner-operator model is highly site specific, requiring partners in close proximity

with closely aligned objectives. 

Examples of past and present cooperative agreements with regional transportation 

authorities, public transit systems, or other not-for-profit partners include those at Glacier

National Park, Colonial National Historical Park, Acadia National Park, and Cape Cod

National Seashore. 

Non-NPS-owned, Non-NPS-operated Service Contract 

Under this owner-operator model, also known as a “turn-key” contract, a unit takes

responsibility for providing and paying for transportation service and contracts out 

ownership and operations. Large park units or park units with heavy demand for 

transportation service commonly enter into turn-key service contracts with transit 

providers. 

Advantages to this owner-operator model for a park are that the park can continue to focus 

on its mission rather than on operating a transit system. Transit operators are experienced 

and can often run transportation systems more efficiently than a park unit. Disadvantages

are that the park may not cover capital vehicle costs as from other fund sources; the park is 

responsible for entering into and enforcing an often complex service contract; and the

drivers of the vehicles are not park staff and may not interact with visitors in the same way

as do park staff. 

Rocky Mountain National Park, Grand Canyon National Park, and Point Reyes National 

Seashore are examples of units that have used turn-key service contracts with private 

transportation providers. 

NPS-owned, Non-NPS-operated Service Contract

This owner-operator model is very similar to the NPS-owned and operated model except 

that NPS owns the vehicles and contracts out operations under a service contract. Under

this owner-operator model, a unit is liable for providing and paying for transportation

service. 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 42 
 

 

 

 

 

The advantages of this model are similar to the NPS-owned and operated model because

capital investments may be funded from other funding sources. In addition, the unit does 

not need to make time, labor, and training investments in becoming a proficient transit 

operator. The disadvantages to this model are that the unit must craft and enforce a

contract that protects public interest. Also, private contractors (transit drivers, for 

example) may not have the same interaction with visitors as park staff, though a member

of the park’s staff could travel with the vehicle to provide interpretation. 

Zion National Park is one example of a unit that owns its vehicles but contracts out 

operations and maintenance. 

NPS-owned, NPS-operated 

Common among NPS transit systems are services which are owned and operated by units 

themselves. Under this owner-operator model, a unit is entirely liable for providing and

paying for transportation service. NPS sources the capital investment for vehicles, 

infrastructure, and related equipment, and operates, fuels, maintains and administers the

service. This owner-operator model gives the park the most direct control over the visitor 

experience and the most flexibility in tailoring the service to fulfill the mission of the park

and to meet individual needs of unique user groups. 

A park unit may fund operations and maintenance activities using fees authorized under

the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA), transportation fees, partner

funding sources, or base funds. 

Operations and maintenance costs for transit systems are often higher than expected and 

have the potential to consume funds from the fee program or base funds which might 

otherwise be used on non-transportation related assets and services. 

This type of owner-operator model is most common among units offering limited transit

systems with a few small vehicles. Eugene O’Neill National Historic Site, Kennesaw 

Mountain National Battlefield, Pinnacles National Park, and Scotts Bluff National 

Monument are a few examples of units that have implemented this owner-operator model. 

KEFJ is not considering a NPS-owned and NPS-operated model; the park is interested in

supporting business opportunities for private entities rather than running a transit system. 

Lifecycle Costs 

Lifecycle costs are all the financial expenses required in order to provide a transportation

offering over the long term. These costs can be divided into the following categories: 

• Capital Costs (transit vehicle purchase and replacement) 

• Operating Costs (driver labor and fuel costs) 

• Maintenance Costs 

To model life-cycle transit system costs, the project team used the Department of the 

Interior Bus Lifecycle Cost Model1 with the following inputs. The team modeled Service 

1 https://www.volpe.dot.gov/transportation-planning/public-lands/department-interior-bus-andferry-lifecycle-cost-modeling 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 43 
Concept 1, the transit shuttle from Seward; other service concepts could be modeled with

changes to the total mileage, service hours, and/or number of vehicles and drivers. 

Table 12: Summary of Constant Inputs, Passenger Van Option 

Source: Volpe 

Ca tegory Input Value 

Vehicle, Service, 

Driver, and 

Environment 

Vehicle type Full-size passenger van 

Vehicle price $25,000 - $50,000 (see Appendix A) 

Number of Vehicles 1 

Passenger Capacity per Vehicle 12 

Start-up costs $10,000 

Marketing costs $5,000/year 

Expected vehicle service lifespan 7 years 

Driver hourly wage $30 

Road conditions Good 

Inflation rate 3.5% 

Basic Schedule Annual service days 153 (May 1 – Sept. 30) 

Daily round trips 9 

Miles per round trip 20 

Operations and 

Maintenance 

Maintenance costs per mile $0.60 

Fuel economy 14 mpg 

Fuel cost per gallon $4.00 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 44 
 

 

Table 13: Summary of Constant Inputs, Cutaway Shuttle Option 

Source: Volpe 

Ca tegory Input Value 

Vehicle, Service, 

Driver, and 

Environment 

Vehicle type Light-Duty Shuttle 

Vehicle price $70,000 - $200,000 (see Appendix A) 

Number of Vehicles 1 

Passenger Capacity per Vehicle 28 

Expected vehicle service lifespan 12 years 

Start-up costs $10,000 

Marketing costs $5,000/year 

Driver hourly wage $30 

Road conditions Good 

Inflation rate 3.5% 

Basic Schedule Annual service days 153 (May 1 – Sept. 30) 

Daily round trips 9 

Miles per round trip 20 

Operations and 

Maintenance 

Maintenance costs per mile $0.60 

Fuel economy 14 mpg 

Fuel cost per gallon $4.00 

Based on the inputs above, this service concept with a 12-person passenger van would cost 

approximately $600,000 over the seven-year lifespan of the vehicle, or approximately

$85,700 per year. If the vehicle ran at full capacity, that would equal a per passenger cost 

of $5.20. The same service concept with a cutaway shuttle bus would cost approximately

$1.38 million over the 12-year lifespan of the vehicle, or approximately $115,000 per year. 

If the vehicle ran at full capacity, that would equal a per passenger cost of $3.01. As 

discussed in the Appendix A: Vehicle Recommendations section, KEFJ or a transit operator 

should select a vehicle size based on the anticipated or measured demand for service. 

However, if demand exists for a larger vehicle, the per passenger cost of the cutaway

shuttle bus would make it more cost efficient. 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 45 
 

 

 

 

 

Funding Mechanisms 

There are several potential ways that parks can finance transportation offerings. From the

point of view of a National Park like KEFJ, these can be categorized into internal and 

external sources. Examples of internal sources of funding are the Federal Lands Highway 

Program (FLHP) and park unit base funds. An example of an external source of funding is

the FTA Formula Grants for Rural Areas (5311). It is important to note that for many of the 

external sources of funding, such as the Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) and 5311, 

grant recipients must be state or local public agencies to be eligible. However, state and 

local agencies can select a non-profit or rural transit provider as a sub-recipient. In order 

for KEFJ to access some of the external sources presented below, KEFJ may have to enter

into a partnership with a state or local agency to provide the transportation offering. 

Internal Funding Sources 

Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP) 

Under the Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP), Regions get a certain amount of

funding each year, which can be spent on transportation systems owned by NPS. In recent 

years, FLTP has provided annual funds averaging $6.5 million to the Alaska Region for both 

Cat I (roads and bridges) and cat III (alternative transportation) projects. FLTP funds can

be applied to transit at the Region’s discretion; however, a transit use would compete with

uses for roads, bridges, and trails throughout the state. 

Transportation Fees 

16 USC 79 § 5981 authorizes NPS to impose a “reasonable and appropriate charge to the 

public” for the use of transportation services. Services may be operated by a unit or by

another entity under service contract, cooperative agreement, or another contractual 

arrangement. All transportation fees remain at the unit at which they were collected and 

are to be used only to cover the costs of the transportation systems. They can be used for

capital, operating, or maintenance expenses. 

Transportation fees require approval of a regional director and of the Washington Support 

Office (WASO). In many parks where transportation fees are collected with entrance fees, 

the entrance fees and the transportation fees are subject to an entrance fee cap. In Alaska,

where there are no entrance fees, there are no caps or limits to transportation fees. Costs

of comparable services are used to justify transportation fees for approval. 

Base Funds 

NPS units can fund transportation capital, operations, and maintenance out of unit base

funds. 

External Funding Sources 

The following examples of external funding are those that have been determined most

relevant for KEFJ. Some focus on rural federal lands and have been selected because of 

KEFJ’s rural location. 

Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) 

FLAP provides funds for projects to improve Federal Lands Access Transportation Facilities 

that provide access to, are adjacent to, or are located within federal lands. This can include

public roads, bridges, trails, or transit systems that are owned and/or maintained by the 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 46 
 

 

 

 

 

state, county, town, township, tribal, municipal, or local government. Funds may be used

for the costs of transportation planning, research, engineering, preventative maintenance,

rehabilitation, restoration, construction, and reconstruction of transportation facilities. 

FLAP funds are awarded through Calls for Projects in each state. In Alaska, the Project 

Decision Committee that makes final funding decisions is composed of representatives from 

the FHWA WFL, and the Alaska Municipal League. In Alaska, FLAP funds approximately $8 

million per year. FLAP projects require a non-Federal match of approximately 10%, which

can be paid for with local agency funds or with NPS FLTP funds. 

Applicable activities include the operation and maintenance of transit facilities that operate 

within, adjacent to, or provide access to federal lands. Although there have not been any 

FLAP projects to date that support transit in Alaska, there have been successful transit 

projects in other states, including the Columbia River Gorge Express in Oregon (operated

by the Oregon Department of Transportation) and the Gorge Translink in Washington 

(operated by Skamania County Transit Services in Washington). 

More information about FLAP can be found at the FHWA FLAP website and this NPS 

factsheet on FLAP for parks. 

FTA Formula Grants for Rural Areas (5311) 

The 5311 program provides capital, planning, and operating assistance to states to support 

public transportation in rural areas with populations of less than 50,000. 5311 funds are 

apportioned to State DOTs and tribal governments. Subrecipients may include local 

government authorities, nonprofit organizations, and operators of public transportation or

intercity bus service. This program also provides technical assistance to rural areas

through the Rural Transit Assistance Program. 

5311 funds can fund capital projects (such as bus purchase), with a maximum Federal share 

of 80%. 5311 funds can fund operating expenses with a maximum Federal share of 50%. In 

fiscal year 2018, Alaska received $98,756 in 5311 funds.1 

Because of the public transportation focus of 5311 funds, these funds are most applicable to 

transit systems that provide general rural transit services, rather than systems that solely 

provide recreational access to park sites. This is something that is important for KEFJ to

consider if they decide to apply for 5311 funds to introduce a potential transit shuttle from 

Seward to the KEFJ Nature Center. For a transit shuttle to be competitive for this program, 

it would have to provide meaningful transit access for community members, not just

recreational access to the KEFJ Exit Glacier. 

More information about 5311 and other FTA funding programs can be found in the NPS 

factsheet on FTA funding for parks. 

1 https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/apportionments/table-9-fy-2018-section-5311-and-section5340-rural-area-formula 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 47 
Fares or Cross-Subsidies 

Private entities operating transportation systems for which NPS is not liable commonly

charge fares. In some cases, a transit operator may provide variety of visitor services – 

such as interpretive tours – and subsidize transit service with profits from the other 

services. However, there have been few such concessionaires with this ability, and crosssubsidies have been uncommon. 

Partner Sources 

Non-profit organizations and private companies can contribute money in support of transit

systems. A notable example is L.L. Bean providing a large operating subsidy to the Acadia 

Island Explorer. However, it is important to state the caveat that arrangements like this are 

uncommon. 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 48 
Summary of Business Model Components 

Table 14: Business Model Components of the Study 

Source: Volpe 

Component Definition E xamples Presented Above 

Purpose The purpose is the reason why a 

particular organization, service, 

product, etc. exists 

• Purpose of a KEFJ transportation offering is 

to provide public access to the Exit Glacier 

Area while protecting park resources. 

Value 

propositions 

to 

stakeholders 

The value propositions are the 

benefits that an organization 

promises that its transportation 

offering will have for various 

stakeholders; stakeholders are 

organizations and individuals that 

have an interest or stake in the 

transportation offering. Specific 

categories have been defined above: 

• User segments (Section 1.2.2.1) 

• Key partners (Section 1.2.2.2) 

• Additional stakeholders (Section 

1.2.2.3) 

For transit shuttle users: 

• Ability to visit the Exit Glacier Area without 

a vehicle or driver’s license 

• Alternative transportation mode to lower 

personal greenhouse gas emissions 

• Opportunity to fully take in the scenery 

For park-and-ride users: 

• Time saved by opting for overflow parking 

lot versus circling to park 

• Relief that they don’t have to park their 

vehicle in an unsafe way 

For transit operators: 

• Potential business opportunity 

Owner- Owner-operator models are typical • Non-NPS-owned, non-NPS-operated 

operator ways that NPS chooses to partner commercial use authorization 

model with external entities or proceed 

independently to deliver a 

transportation solution 

• Non-NPS-owned, non-NPS-operated 

concessions contract 

• Non-NPS-owned, non-NPS-operated 

cooperative agreement 

• Non-NPS-owned, non-NPS-operated 

service contract 

• NPS-owned, non-NPS-operated service 

contract 

• NPS-owned, NPS-operated 

Lifecycle costs Lifecycle costs are all of the financial 

expenses that are incurred in order to 

provide a transportation offering 

• Capital costs 

• Operations costs 

• Maintenance costs 

Funding 

mechanisms 

Funding mechanisms are the means 

by which the lifecycle costs of the 

transportation offering are financed. 

• Internal 

• External 

E xample Business Models for Exit Glacier Business Model Examples 

The following subsections offer examples of business models for the two transit concepts

described above (transit shuttle from Seward and park-and-ride shuttle). 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 49 
 

 

 

 

Potential Business Models for a Transit Shuttle from Seward 

Commercial Use Authorization for Exit Glacier Guides 

As described above, CUAs are owner-operator models in which a unit approves a private 

entity to operate within park boundaries. There are a number of ways that a business

model for the transit shuttle that operates with the commercial use authorization could 

evolve, but for the purposes of this analysis, we will assume that a private business like the

existing CUA holder, Exit Glacier Shuttle, would run the shuttle. Building from this premise 

and some of the business model components presented above, this potential business model

would likely involve the following: 

• Least change from current situation as an existing CUA holder already serves this 

route. This potential business model would maintain the existing transit system as 

currently operated by Exit Glacier Shuttle. This model aligns relatively well with the 

purpose of the KEFJ transportation offering to provide public access to the Exit Glacier 

Area while protecting park resources. 

• Partnership with the transit operator and the City of Seward to promote the transit 

shuttle through an information campaign. It is important for KEFJ to consider and 

clarify a value proposition to the City of Seward in securing their partnership on a 

publicity campaign. For example, the transit shuttle could enhance the Seward 

experience for both local residents and tourists, and boost the tourism economy. 

• Partnerships with City of Seward and/or RV Parks to provide discounts to shuttle 

users who can demonstrate that they have left their RV parked in a Seward lot. 

Again, it is important for KEFJ to consider and clarify the value propositions to these 

potential partners. Parked RVs might increase safety and reduce traffic in Seward. 

Taking a shuttle may also be an attractive proposition to RV drivers, who would not 

have to mark their parking spot and would save fuel by not driving to Exit Glacier. 

• Partnership with City of Seward to design and promote seamless links to city 

transit system. Seamless links to the city transit system could improve general 

mobility in Seward and support the local economy. 

Cooperative Agreement with City of Seward 

As described above, cooperative agreements are situations when a park unit enters into an

agreement with a not-for-profit partner such as a regional transportation authority, a 

municipal government, a public transit system, or another partner to provide 

transportation to visitors. Under this model, NPS shares liability with the partner for

providing and/or paying for service. Again, it is important to note that there are a number 

of ways that a business model based on a cooperative agreement with the City of Seward

could evolve. The following list presents potential considerations: 

• Considerable change from current situation as there is no City of Seward transit 

shuttle that currently serves this route. While this business model would likely 

require the expansion of the City of Seward shuttle services and potentially the 

acquisition of a new vehicle or vehicles, strong ridership of a Seward to Exit Glacier 

shuttle might displace vehicles from the roads. Further research is required to 

understand how this business model aligns with the purpose of the KEFJ transportation 

offering to provide public access to the Exit Glacier Area while protecting park 

resources. 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 50 
 

 

• Partnership with City of Seward Chamber of Commerce to promote the transit 

shuttle through local businesses. It is important for KEFJ to consider and clarify the 

value proposition of potential partnerships between the City of Seward transit shuttle 

and the City of Seward Chamber of Commerce and local businesses. For example, the 

City of Seward transit shuttle might discount the cost of a shuttle ticket with proof of 

purchase at a local business, and local businesses might offer retail discounts with 

proof of purchase of a shuttle ticket to Exit Glacier. 

• Partnerships with RV Parks to provide discounts to shuttle users who can 

demonstrate that they have left their RV parked in a Seward lot. As discussed for the 

previous business model, parked RVs might increase safety and reduce traffic in the 

City of Seward. They may also be attractive to RV drivers for providing a convenient 

alternative to moving their RV. 

Potential Business Model for a Park-and-Ride Shuttle 

Service Contract 

As described above, in this owner-operator model, a park unit takes responsibility for 

providing and paying for transportation service and contracts out ownership and

operations. The following list presents potential considerations for a park-and-ride

business model initiated through a service contract: 

• Considerable change from current situation as there is no designated Exit Glacier 

overflow parking lot with park-and-ride shuttle service to the Nature Center 

parking lot. This business model might result in increased traffic along Herman Leirer 

Road and disruption to the location identified as a potential overflow lot (e.g., increased 

noise and traffic). Further research is required to understand how this business model 

aligns with the purpose of the KEFJ transportation offering to provide public access to 

the Exit Glacier while protecting park resources. One challenge to the business model 

for the park-and-ride scenario is that it may face unpredictable demand; riders will 

typically only use the shuttle when the Nature Center lot is full, since the shuttle does 

not provide full transit access from Seward. This may make it difficult for a transit 

operator to derive reliable income from the service, and the operator may require 

service contract funding from NPS to ensure a viable income stream. In addition, the 

service may face a challenge of heavily peaked demand, which may require an operator 

to have excess vehicle capacity during non-peak visitation times in order to avoid 

excessive wait times during peak periods. 

Business Model Innovation 

Business models change over time. They often must change in order to stay viable. KEFJ

and its partners should revisit their business models regularly to understand whether or 

not they are keeping true to their purpose(s) and realizing the value propositions they

intended for various stakeholders. 

Multi-modal Transportation 

There is significant interest from the public to have alternative forms of access to Kenai

Fjords. At times of peak visitation many residents refrain from visiting the park by car, and 

don’t feel comfortable walking or riding a bicycle on Herman Leirer Road. There is a desire 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 51 
 

 

 

 

by many residents to access the park by bicycle. A 2010 multi-modal transportation study

suggested a trail connecting Seward Highway with the Exit Glacier visitor area. 

The total length of the proposed trail is 8.2 miles. Milepost 7.3-8.2 is located on National

Park Service land and if the National Park Service were to fund construction of the first 0.9 

miles of the trail within park boundaries, the U.S. FS and other partners may agree to

continue its construction towards Seward. As of now, there is no pedestrian connection 

between the Exit Glacier campground and Nature Center, and no opportunity to explore the 

area surrounding the park. In addition to initiating the first section of trail, a new

connection would link the NPS campground, the Forest Service Resurrection River 

Trailhead, and the Resurrection River Pullout (a photo point for Exit Glacier). These 

parking lots serving the neighboring federal lands are currently isolated and limit shared 

access. 

A multi-use path would also provide all-season opportunities for access. In winter, the path 

would serve as a place to cross-country ski, snowshoe, or dogsled. During the winter, NPS 

closes the road to passenger vehicles, and local residents and visitors often use the closed

roadway for snow machine and winter non-motorized access to Exit Glacier. However, a 

multi-use path would make it possible to separate motorized and non-motorized winter 

travel. 

In addition to the multi-use path, or until the path is constructed, safety improvements

along the highway are in high demand. During meetings with stakeholders and the public, 

the project team heard that residents and visitors do not feel safe using the roadway for 

walking or bicycling in the summer when the visitation to the park is at its peak. This is

unfortunate, because the threat of conflict with motor vehicles greatly discourages use of 

one of the most scenic roadways in the area, and there are limited options in the region for 

on-pavement exploration by bicycle. It will likely be many years before funding and

construction of a true multi-use trail, but the following improvements would make a more 

welcoming user experience: 

• Widened shoulders on the roadway to ensure that walkers and cyclists are further 

buffered from traffic; 

• Rumble warning strips on the edge of the road and centerline communicate to 

drivers and recreationists that a vehicle has veered out of the lane; and 

• Clearing of vegetation can improve visibility and safety. 

KEFJ should also consider how future motorized and non-motorized mobility trends may 

impact the Herman Leirer Road in the future. Communities across the U.S. are seeing a rise

in new, motorized options such as electric bicycles (e-bikes), electric scooters, electric 

skateboards, and other small electric vehicles. Electric options have extended the range

that is possible in a single trip. Electric bikes and scooters are often operated through a 

dockless sharing model, in which private companies deploy and maintain fleets of Global 

Positioning System (GPS)-enabled bicycles and scooters that riders can unlock and pay for

with a smart phone and ride to their destination. These services have changed many users’ 

perceptions of how to get around and what distances are feasible to travel by bike or 

scooter. Although there is currently no bicycle or scooter share in Seward, which is unlikely

to be a large enough community to support such a service, conditions may change as 

business models and technologies evolve. In addition, a private company could choose to

offer e-bikes through a more traditional day or half-day rental model; a similar service has 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 52 
 

 

 

become popular for visitors in Skagway, Alaska, who ride e-bikes to the Dyea unit 

approximately 10 miles away. 

As the distribution and popularity of e-bikes and scooters grows, they may start appearing

on Herman Leirer Road. Although the future of bike sharing, scooters, and other mobility 

trends in Seward is currently unknown, it is important for KEFJ to consider how emerging

modes could change visitor expectations and behaviors along a potential future multi-use 

path. KEFJ and other partners should consider current or future policies regarding 

motorized modes such as e-bikes and scooters, and whether they would be allowed to use a

multi-use path. Likewise, the park should consider and monitor demand for bicycle parking 

and other related infrastructure at the Exit Glacier Nature Center. Although these modes 

may create a policy challenge, they can also present an opportunity; e-bikes would make

the 10-mile trip to the Exit Glacier Nature Center approachable for a larger number of 

visitors than traditional bicycles and could expand access to the Nature Center through

means other than a private vehicle. This could, in turn, reduce demand for vehicle parking

at the Nature Center parking lot. 

Transportation Data 

Additional data will assist decision-makers when considering future courses of action at the 

Exit Glacier Area. Substantial changes to the parking lot will require supporting data to

make an informed decision and justify expenditure of funds. Likewise, implementation of a 

transit system will be aided by the continued collection and analysis of ongoing operations 

information. Collaboration with other owners of such information will ensure the system 

operates smoothly and interconnects efficiently. 

Through the course of this study, the project team identified data needs that KEFJ should

work to address by adding additional categories to the ongoing data collected for Herman 

Leirer Road and the Nature Center parking lot. Certain recommendations from the report

may be contingent on achieving specific milestones and collecting accurate information will 

ensure that those actions are implemented at an appropriate time. A parking lot utilization 

study is a good first step to define current conditions. Possible data points include: 

• Total number of vehicles entering the lot (annual and daily) 

• Distribution of vehicles by type (e.g., number of buses, cars, and RVs) 

• Distribution of vehicle parking over time (seasonal and weekly trends) 

• Average vehicle speed 

• Length of stay 

• How often parking lot is at capacity and for what duration 

• Time required to wait for a parking space 

• Time of day parking typically fills up 

• Estimated capacity exceedance (i.e., how many vehicles park in informal overflow 

spots or are unable to find a parking space?) 

It is important to develop an understanding of demand on the current transit system as 

well as demand for a transit system that connects to Exit Glacier. KEFJ should work with

the City of Seward, its shuttle system contractor (Seward City Tours), and the Exit Glacier 

Shuttle to collect and share data regarding transit use in Seward and to Exit Glacier. This 

data should include: 

• Frequency of service 

• Capacity of service 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 53 
• Number of riders daily and annually 

• Peak demand periods 

• Inquiries into service (to gauge interest) 

• Rider surveys 

• Rider origin (cruise ship, train, RV park, etc.) 

There are several data needs at the outset of a new transit system. A good understanding of

the initial demand and a clear plan for data collection will help establish a baseline of 

operations when adjusting frequency of service and/or fleet vehicles. Additional data that

will help with the planning of a transit system include: 

• Number of potential riders staying in the campgrounds 

• Number of RV visitors to Seward each year 

• Number of overnight hotel stays, with and without a car if possible 

• Visitor projections (cruise ship dockings, campground and hotel reservations, trend 

analyses) 

• Private tour operator capacity 

Seward tourism data and visitation information should be quantified to the extent possible.

Not all such information is available. Efforts to collect such data may be undertaken by the 

office of tourism, Chamber of Commerce, or the City of Seward. Data collection to support a 

transit system is more than just a partnership opportunity; it relies on an effective 

partnership with the transit provider. Data to be collected in this arena include: 

• Total number of hotel beds 

• Occupancy rate 

• Number of visitors by car vs. cruise ship vs. RV vs. train 

• Number of visitors coming off ship and transferring directly to train (and vice

versa) 

Traveler Information 

Transportation data collected above will help with the dissemination of information to park 

visitors. Although KEFJ provides general transportation information on its website and 

brochure, there is currently no system in place to provide real-time information on the

status of the Nature Center parking lot or other transportation information. The current 

lack of mobile network coverage creates difficulties for travelers and for NPS operations

and is a constraint on any future sharing of real-time information. However, KEFJ should 

consider opportunities to provide real-time information – either by establishing seasonal 

cell phone service at the Exit Glacier Nature Center or through other strategies. 

Real-time traveler information is often referred to as ITS and is useful in communicating 

useful information for trip planning. A very common form of ITS, and likely the most useful

for Exit Glacier, is variable messaging signage that could be placed in Seward or along the 

Herman Leirer Road corridor. The variable messaging sign would have to be updated with

parking lot status, either manually by KEFJ staff or through “smart” technology, such 

traffic counters or video cameras that can track the number of vehicles and empty spaces in 

the lot. This information could then be sent to variable messaging signs, the KEFJ website,

and/or visitor apps. One example of a parking management system in a national park 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 54 
 

 

 

 

 

setting is Cape Cod National Seashore, which uses traffic counters to provide real-time

monitoring of parking lot capacity to the public.1 

Recommended information for collection and dissemination includes: 

• Number of open parking spaces 

• Wait time for a parking spot 

• Visitor surge times 

• Next available bus (if applicable) 

• Drive time to the Nature Center 

• Weather conditions 

In addition to ITS, some basic signage and wayfinding changes for the park can help reduce 

visitor confusion. Similar signage treatments along Herman Leirer Road and in the City of 

Seward will help with navigation to the park or interconnected transportation. These

strategies could include: 

• Clearly marked bus stops and parking 

• Pictogram vs. text on directional signage 

• Large markings on the ground that coincide with signage 

• Bicycle route signage 

• RV parking information 

• Safety information 

A final issue with traveler awareness involves managing the information disseminated to 

tourists. During the August 2018 site visit, the project team noticed that information

related to transportation to Exit Glacier was inconsistent, and staff at many local 

businesses – such as hotel desk staff – lacked knowledge of existing transit offerings. KEFJ 

could work with the City of Seward, the Seward Chamber of Commerce, local transit

operators, and other local businesses to develop more unified messaging regarding 

transportation options to Exit Glacier. This could also include online information and

handouts to provide to hotel desk clerks and other local businesses. 

Partnerships 

Almost all considerations for improving transportation access to Exit Glacier noted above

will require collaboration with public or private partners to be successful. For example, any 

infrastructure along the non-NPS-owned section of Herman Leirer Road to support multimodal access, transit, or ITS would require approval and coordination with ADOT&PF and 

any other adjacent landowners, such as the U.S. FS or Alaska Department of Natural 

Resources (DNR). Because of the multiple jurisdictions along Herman Leirer Road and the

variety of stakeholders in the City of Seward, KEFJ should consider opportunities to work 

with partners and leverage opportunities through those partnerships. Many of the 

operational or information-based strategies – such as providing incentives for RV users 

taking transit or marketing transit access to visitors in Seward – would also rely on 

partnerships with a private transit operator, the City of Seward, other local businesses, and

the Seward Chamber of Commerce. Better coordinating transit schedules and routes to 

1 NPS. 2013. Cape Cod National Seashore Parking Management System Pilot Synthesis. 

https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/12098. 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 55 
coincide with other major attractions or transportation nodes – such as the Sea Life Center, 

train arrivals, or cruise ships – could also make transit more appealing for visitors. 

During the August 2018 site visit, City of Seward staff said that they were planning to 

convene a new transportation working group to address transportation issues in Seward. 

Although this group will likely focus on other community transportation challenges, it may

also be a valuable forum for KEFJ to discuss ways to improve access to Exit Glacier. When 

working with this group, it will be important for KEFJ staff to frame discussions to be 

salient to community members in Seward, by focusing on the potential benefits for 

community residents and businesses. 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 56 
 

 

 

Conclusion 

The purpose of the Exit Glacier Area Transportation Feasibility Study is to evaluate the 

current transportation conditions at the Exit Glacier Area – including parking lot

congestion and multi-modal access – and evaluate the feasibility of a range of potential 

infrastructure, operations, or traveler information actions to improve transportation 

conditions. To achieve this, the project team analyzed the following strategies to manage

congestion: 

• Parking Lot Infrastructure/Management (e.g., realignment/expansion or operations) 

• Transit 

• Multi-modal Transportation 

• Data Needs 

• Visitor Information 

• Partnerships 

Because many of these elements are interrelated, KEFJ may ultimately decide to pursue an

approach that draws on multiple consideration areas. 

KEFJ staff articulated the following desired conditions for transportation to the Exit Glacier

Area: 

• Safety for visitors of all transportation modes and KEFJ staff in the Nature Center 

Parking lot and along Herman Leirer Road. 

• Access for all visitors regardless of mode or vehicle type. 

• Capacity to meet visitor transportation needs. 

• Financial sustainability of infrastructure, maintenance, and operations to ensure 

long-term success. 

• Environmental sustainability with minimized impacts to sensitive resources. 

• Positive visitor experience for visitors with a range of recreational opportunities. 

This conclusion will consider the range of considerations above with regard to these

desired conditions. It will also consider the timing and relative level of effort required for 

different actions or strategies, and highlight the potential for “quick wins” or a progression

of actions as conditions change. 

In addition, it is important to consider future uncertainty. KEFJ should monitor future 

visitation and parking conditions in the Exit Glacier area and develop responses 

appropriate to demonstrated need. Where possible, KEFJ should also pursue “actions of no

regret,” which will be effective under a range of future visitation conditions. 

Potential Sequencing of Congestion Management Strategies 

Na ture Center Parking Lot Infrastructure and Management 

For the Nature Center parking lot, there are a number of relatively low-effort strategies 

that may help KEFJ manage or reduce congestion that would be less costly and have fewer 

impacts than expanding the Nature Center parking lot. In general, the park should employ

these strategies first and evaluate their effectiveness; many of these strategies also can be 

implemented on a shorter timeframe and can be tried as pilots before being made

permanent. Table 15 lists the potential parking lot strategies from lowest to highest efforts. 

The items closer to the top of the table represent relatively “quick wins” that the park 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 57 
 

could implement quickly, with limited cost, while the strategies near the bottom would

require more substantial effort and investment. 

Table 15: Summary of Nature Center Parking Lot Considerations, from Lowest to Highest Effort 

Source: Volpe 

Sequencing S trategy Notes 

Low-effort / 

“ Quick wins” 

Operations / Parking 

Management 

Continue to use seasonal parking attendants to direct visitors 

to available parking spots. Develop a parking management 

plan at the beginning of each season for use during high 

congestion. Monitor, evaluate, and adjust as necessary. 

Signage / Wayfinding Redesign signage and pavement markings to better 

communicate how to navigate the parking lot. 

Parking Monitoring / 

Capacity Analysis 

Collect and analyze data to quantify parking demand and 

inform future management of the parking lot. See 

Transportation Data section for more information. 

Reallocate spaces 

between vehicle types 

(RVs and cars) within 

the existing parking lot 

footprint 

By painting a stripe through the middle of an RV spot, KEFJ 

could turn one RV spot into two car spots. This would increase 

the total vehicle capacity of the lot, although it may lead to 

more parking challenges for RVs. 

Minor parking lot By formalizing the current informal parking along the shoulders 

expansion of the current parking lot, KEFJ could increase the formal 

parking capacity of the lot. This would require an expansion of 

the footprint, however, and would require the park to develop 

and maintain a new gravel shoulder at the new pavement 

edge. 

High-effort / 

Long-term 

projects 

Substantial parking lot 

expansion 

KEFJ could begin feasibility studies and planning for a 

substantial parking lot expansion. This option would require 

several years to implement, requiring planning, design, and 

environmental review prior to construction. It would also have 

a substantial cost and would require long-term maintenance of 

the additional parking lot area. A future study would be 

required to estimate its cost, as well as evaluate its potential 

impacts on natural and cultural resources and the visitor 

experience. 

T ransit to Exit Glacier Nature Center 

As discussed in the Transit Considerations section above, there is an existing shuttle that 

provides transit access to Exit Glacier from downtown Seward, as well as a circulator 

shuttle that provides transit service around the City of Seward. However, the project team

identified opportunities to enhance the effectiveness of these existing services to encourage 

greater utilization, through traveler information, marketing, and potential coordination on 

routes and schedules to make the services more attractive to visitors. In general, KEFJ

should try to work with the existing transit providers to encourage greater utilization of 

existing transit to Exit Glacier before considering establishing any other system. The park 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 58 
should also be careful not to disrupt or compete with existing businesses, instead focusing

on enhancing services and providing expanded business opportunities for local businesses. 

However, as conditions change over time, KEFJ may recognize a need for greater transit 

capacity, or the transit offerings in KEFJ may change, which may require the park to

consider alternative transit business models. Table 16 lists the potential transit strategies 

from lowest to highest efforts. The items closer to the top of the table represent relatively

“quick wins” that the park could implement quickly, with limited cost, while the strategies

near the bottom would require more substantial effort and investment. 

Table 16: Summary of Exit Glacier Transit Considerations, from Lowest to Highest Effort 

Source: Volpe 

Sequencing S trategy Notes 

Low-effort / 

“ Quick wins” 

High-effort / 

Long-term 

projects 

Transit Information / 

Marketing 

KEFJ could work with the existing transit CUA holder, the City of 

Seward, the Chamber of Commerce, and other local 

stakeholders to enhance the reach and consistency of traveler 

information for visitors to Seward. This could include 

coordinated transit information about the City of Seward 

circulator shuttle and the Exit Glacier shuttle, information on the 

KEFJ website encouraging visitors to take transit from Seward, 

and clear signage in Seward marking shuttle stop locations and 

routes. 

Adjustments or 

Enhancements to 

Existing Transit Service 

KEFJ could work with the existing transit CUA holder and the 

City of Seward to consider opportunities to adjust or enhance 

the existing transit service options to make them more attractive 

to visitors. Potential options include: 

• Co-locating stops and coordinating schedules for 

convenient transfers between the city shuttle and the Exit 

Glacier shuttle 

• Developing a subsidy for visitors staying in the City of 

Seward RV lots to ride the Exit Glacier shuttle for a free or 

reduced rate 

New Transit System 

(either a shuttle from 

Exit Glacier Area or a 

Park-and-Ride system 

along Herman Leirer 

Road) 

If the park experiences substantial parking lot congestion in the 

future, or in the case of changes to the existing transit service to 

Exit Glacier, KEFJ may need to consider developing a new transit 

system to serve the Exit Glacier Area. This system could either be 

a shuttle from Seward (similar to the existing shuttle route) or a 

park-and-ride system along Herman Leirer Road. This strategy 

would have substantial costs (outlined in the Transit 

Considerations section above) and would have to be considered 

carefully to avoid disrupting existing local businesses. 

Multi-modal Transportation Considerations 

The project team heard substantial enthusiasm for multi-modal transportation 

enhancements during the August 2018 site visit. Many local residents expressed an interest

in biking and running to Exit Glacier but said they do not feel safe sharing the road with 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 59 
 

traffic during the summer tourism season. Table 17 lists the potential multi-modal

transportation strategies from lowest to highest efforts. The items closer to the top of the 

table represent relatively “quick wins” that the park could implement quickly, with limited 

cost, while the strategies near the bottom would require more substantial effort and

investment. 

Table 17: Summary of Exit Glacier Multi-modal Transportation Considerations, from Lowest to Highest Effort 

Source: Volpe 

Sequencing S trategy Notes 

Low-effort / 

“ Quick wins” 

Signage / Wayfinding 

Improvements for 

Multi-modal 

Transportation 

Signage and pavement markings along Herman Leirer Road 

could provide wayfinding for bicyclists and pedestrians. It could 

also have a minor safety benefit by notifying drivers to expect 

multi-modal road users and to give them space while passing. 

Multi-modal Safety improvements to Herman Leirer Road to separate 

Roadway Safety bicyclists and pedestrians from vehicle traffic as much as possible 

Improvements would require substantial investment but would be cheaper than 

an off-road bike path. These could include vegetation clearing to 

improve visibility, a wider shoulder, lane markings, and rumble 

strips. However, these would have limited benefit in encouraging 

multi-modal use, as some road users would feel comfortable 

traveling in a widened shoulder, but others would still be nervous 

sharing the road with RVs, buses, and cars. 

Off-Road Multi-use An 8.2-mile off-road multi-use trail along Herman Leirer Road 

Trail along Herman would provide safe, comfortable, multi-modal access to Exit 

High-effort / 

Long-term 

projects 

Leirer Road Glacier. KEFJ completed a feasibility study for a potential trail in 

2010 and an Environmental Assessment in 2013, but there are no 

plans for construction currently. In addition to the expense of the 

trail, KEFJ and other road owners along the corridor need to plan 

for the long-term maintenance costs and staff resources needed 

over the total life span of the trail. In addition, the multijurisdictional nature of the Herman Leirer Road is a challenge to 

implementation. KEFJ could consider constructing the 0.9-mile 

section within NPS boundaries, but would need to coordinate 

with ADOT&PF, the U.S. FS, and other partners along the road 

corridor if the trail were to be constructed on the whole corridor. 

KEFJ, ADOT&PF, and the U.S. FS could also pursue construction 

grant funds through programs like FLAP, which funds projects on 

non-federally-owned assets that access Federal Lands. However, 

FLAP does not fund maintenance, so KEFJ and its partners would 

still need to develop a long-term maintenance plan. 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 60 
 

T ransportation Data Considerations 

Over the course of this transportation study, the project team identified several areas

where KEFJ does not have data to quantify the nature of use and congestion at Exit Glacier. 

In addition, the project team heard several questions about data from community members,

who emphasized that the park should make data-driven decisions. As a result, the project 

team recommends that KEFJ consider ways to enhance its data collection in the following 

areas: 

Parking Lot Utilization Data 

The project team recommends collecting more detailed data regarding parking lot 

utilization. One strategy to collect this data would be to task KEFJ staff, such as the parking

lot attendants, with some data collection as part of their duties. This would be relatively 

cost-effective, but it would compete with their primary role of managing parking during

busy times, so KEFJ should be careful to keep data collection as simple as possible. For 

example, staff could note what time each day the parking lot fills up, but would not be able 

to keep hourly parking utilization data. Another strategy would be to acquire additional

traffic counters to help KEFJ refine its understanding of how many vehicles (and which 

types) access the lot, and could provide hourly data on vehicle entrances and exits. This 

would require KEFJ to install a series of counters – on a permanent or temporary basis – to

count vehicles not only as they enter the lot but also as they leave and as they enter 

different parking areas (bus vs. car vs. RV). Alternatively, KEFJ could consider purchasing a

counter that can distinguish between vehicle types, but this would require additional 

research to identify a suitable model. In summer 2019, KEFJ began testing a vehicle 

classifier that counts vehicles based on axle length which will run concurrently with the

existing vehicle counter to determine if finer counts of vehicle type can be obtained using

the classifier. 

KEFJ could also undertake a more formal parking lot utilization study. In such a study, 

traffic counter data collection and analysis could be paired with observation of the parking

lot during a representative sample of summer weekends to track the duration of vehicle 

parking in the lot, informal shoulder parking, and other parking lot utilization. This study 

would provide the most robust, comprehensive understanding of how visitors use the

parking lot. 

Transit Use Data 

Currently, KEFJ has a limited understanding of use and demand for transit service to Exit 

Glacier. KEFJ should work with the City of Seward, its shuttle system contractor (Seward 

City Tours), and the current shuttle CUA holder to Exit Glacier (Exit Glacier Shuttle) to

better understand ridership data. Some of this data may be easier to access than others. For 

example, KEFJ could require ridership reporting (annual or daily) as part of the CUA for the 

Exit Glacier shuttle. Other data may be more difficult to collect and may require a survey as

part of a longer term effort to understand transit use and demand. 

Other Tourism Industry Data 

As discussed above, KEFJ should track trends in the tourism industry in Seward, such as 

cruise ship visitation trends. This can best be achieved by collaborating with local partners 

and through access to publically available datasets such as the Alaska Visitor Statistics 

Program. 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 61 
 

 

T raveler Information Considerations 

The project team identified several potential strategies to enhance traveler information.

This includes both static information – such as signage or website content providing 

information about transportation options and general conditions – and real-time 

information about parking lot capacity or transit service schedules. An intermediate 

strategy, if real-time data is not feasible, is to provide general information about times of 

the day or week when congestion is typically highest, to encourage visitors to arrive at nonpeak times. Table 18 lists the potential multi-modal transportation strategies from lowest 

to highest efforts. The items closer to the top of the table represent relatively “quick wins” 

that the park could implement quickly, with limited cost, while the strategies near the 

bottom would require more substantial effort and investment. 

Table 18: Summary of Exit Glacier Traveler Information Considerations, from Lowest to Highest Effort 

Source: Volpe 

Sequencing S trategy Notes 

Low-effort / 

“ Quick wins” 

Post general 

transportation option 

information and 

strategies to avoid 

parking congestion on 

KEFJ website 

This strategy is the lowest level of effort and could provide 

valuable information to visitors. Adding a discussion about how 

to avoid parking congestion – for example by taking the shuttle 

or by arriving at non-peak times – could help visitors plan their 

trips and reduce peak demand on the parking lot. 

Coordinate with Local KEFJ could work with the City of Seward, the Chamber of 

Partners on Traveler Commerce, and other local stakeholders to enhance the reach 

Information / and consistency of traveler information for visitors to Seward. 

High-effort / 

Long-term 

projects 

Marketing This could include coordinated transit information about the 

City of Seward circulator shuttle and the Exit Glacier shuttle, 

information on the KEFJ website encouraging visitors to take 

transit from Seward, and clear signage in Seward marking 

shuttle stop locations and routes. 

Intelligent 

Transportation 

Systems (ITS) to 

Provide Real-Time 

Parking and/or Transit 

Data 

KEFJ could develop an ITS to provide real-time information to 

visitors. For example, a variable messaging sign on Herman 

Leirer Road or at the junction with Seward Highway could alert 

visitors to parking lot capacity and warn them if the parking lot 

is full. This, partnered with a transit option, could allow visitors 

to choose to use transit, instead. ITS information could also be 

uploaded to the KEFJ website and/or visitor information apps. 

The biggest challenge with this strategy is the lack of cell phone 

coverage or internet access at Exit Glacier. Without a way to 

transmit real-time information from Exit Glacier, KEFJ could not 

support a robust ITS. However, the park could explore the 

potential for providing phone updates when the parking lot is 

full that could inform the variable message signs or website 

updates. 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 62 
 

 

Pa rtnerships 

As discussed above, partnerships are key to the success of almost all considerations for

improving transportation access to Exit Glacier. For example, any infrastructure along the 

non-NPS-owned section of Herman Leirer Road to support multi-modal access, transit, or 

ITS would require approval and coordination with ADOT&PF and any other adjacent 

landowners, such as the U.S. FS or Alaska DNR. Because of the multiple jurisdictions along 

Herman Leirer Road and the variety of stakeholders in the City of Seward, KEFJ should

consider opportunities to work with partners and leverage opportunities through those 

partnerships. 

During the August 2018 site visit, City of Seward staff said that they were planning to 

convene a new transportation working group to address transportation issues in Seward.

Although this group will likely focus on other community transportation challenges, it can 

also be a valuable forum for KEFJ to discuss ways to improve access to Exit Glacier. When 

working with this group, it will be important for KEFJ staff to frame discussions to be 

salient to community members in Seward, by focusing on the potential benefits for 

community residents and businesses. 

Next Steps and Resources for Implementation 

This conclusion lays out a range of strategies under each category starting with actions 

feasible in the short term and ending with more difficult or expensive actions to consider in 

the long term. In general, the project team recommends and iterative, adaptive approach. 

KEFJ should pursue actions that are feasible in the short term (“quick wins”), while

collecting data and monitoring conditions. Improving data on parking lot and transit use 

will be necessary prior to undertaking more substantial potential projects, such as park lot 

expansion or a new or expanded transit service. KEFJ could also pursue these longer-term 

ideas through the park’s future Frontcountry Management Plan, which would consider a

number of different potential future scenarios to get the most robust actions. 

KEFJ can also consult the following resources to brainstorm options and learn about

notable practices from other parks or transportation agencies, which cross-cut topic areas: 

• NPS Congestion Management Toolkit: Developed by NPS, this Toolkit currently 

features 59 tools and a process to identify congestion problems and mitigate them. 

The toolkit can be used by parks, partners, and/or consultants. 

• FHWA Traffic Calming ePrimer: This ePrimer presents a thorough review of current 

traffic calming practice and contains information needed to understand this complex 

field. This resource includes information and examples from rural contexts, which 

would be particularly relevant for KEFJ. 

As discussed above, community support and coordination with stakeholders will be crucial

to the success of the strategies in this report. KEFJ should discuss the strategies in this 

report with its partners and community stakeholders to identify strategies of mutual

benefit and potential implementation approaches. 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 63 
 

 

 

 

Appendix A: Vehicle Recommendations 

This Appendix reviews the constraints and requirements for vehicles providing transit 

access to the Kenai Fjords Nature Center. Depending on which business model and service

concept the park and its partners select, the transit provider may choose not to purchase a 

new vehicle in order to provide service, instead relying on existing vehicles. However, this

section provides useful information to inform vehicle selection decisions, if such a service

requires procurement of new vehicles. 

Constraints and Requirements 

Prominent considerations for selection of an appropriate vehicle include passenger 

capacity, which will drive a vehicle type and size; and physical characteristics of the route

itself (e.g., height restrictions, tight turning areas, terrain and environment / weather

during operations). 

Herman Leirer Road presents no significant hills or grade changes along the route; 

however, there is a relatively steady uphill grade for the duration of the road. The current

Exit Glacier Shuttle service vehicles consist of passenger vans and small, “cutaway” style 

passenger buses constructed on popular domestic truck chassis. While a larger vehicle 

could navigate the route successfully, it would do so with a reduced margin for safety,

particularly with pedestrian and bicycle traffic along the route, and require more skill and

attention on behalf of the driver. 

Suitable Vehicle Platforms 

The table below compares vehicle options that are ADA compliant1 and suitable for 

transportation service along Herman Leirer Road. Vehicle options for each are available for

purchase via the General Services Administration, or through private vendors if purchased

by a non-Federal entity. 

1 Transportation service providers providing access to or transportation through Federal lands must utilize 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible vehicles, for all vehicles in operation. 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 64 
 

 

 

Table 19: Summary Characteristics of Potential Transit Vehicle Types 

Source: Volpe 

Type Ca pacity 

(seated) Life (years/ 

miles) 

Cost Fuel 

E conomy Ma neuverability Access 

Passenger 

Van 

6-8 

1 WC 

5 / 100,000 $25,000-

$50,000 

15 mpg 

(gas) 

Best 

Narrow width & 

short wheelbase 

Poor 

Sliding door, 

wheelchair 

(WC) lift 

Van-based 

Shuttle 

12-14 

2 WC 

7 / 

200,000 

$60,000 -

$120,000 

9-10 mpg 

(gas) 

Good 

Med. width & short 

wheelbase 

Good 

Transit door, 

WC lift, & 

center aisle 

Light-Duty 

Shuttle Bus 

12-30 

2 WC 

7 / 

200,000 

$70,000 -

$200,000 

8 mpg 

(diesel) 

Poor 

Full width & long 

wheelbase 

Best 

Transit door, 

WC lift, & fullwidth aisle 

Pa ssenger Vans 

Passenger vans are a popular and economic solution for moving small groups of people, but

they have two critical shortcomings: 

• Difficult entry / access for passengers achieved through a sliding side door with no

aisle to reach rear seats; and, 

• Inadequate passenger capacity when equipped with wheelchair lift systems. 

Bulky items are difficult to handle upon entry or exit via a sliding side door, resulting in 

longer times for passenger loading and unloading at each stop. For limited services that do 

not expect large groups of passengers, passenger vans can provide basic transportation 

services at a modest cost. For a regular transportation service that aims to provide 

transportation to all visitors, passenger vans are not an ideal platform. 

Van-based Shuttle Bus 

Several secondary manufacturers offer vehicles built off van chassis that feature dual rear

wheels on each side of a heavy-duty rear axle and include larger bus-style passenger 

compartments with capacities for 12 to 16 people. These manufacturers begin with an 

existing mass-produced platform (with drivetrains from domestic or foreign automotive

manufacturers such as Ford, GM, or Mercedes); which are then outfitted with the body 

(including passenger door and windows), interior, seats and remaining equipment, and are

made available for sale by the secondary manufacturer. Any local commercial bus 

dealership will have various models built by secondary manufacturers that will be similar. 

Options include those built off a Ford chassis, such as the Goshen Coach Pacer II shown in

Figure 19, and multiple fuel options including gas and diesel variants are readily available. 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 65 
Figure 19: Goshen Coach Pacer II 

Source: Goshen Coach 

Regardless of the base chassis employed, each of the vehicles available in this configuration 

enable a narrow body with a full-size transit-style door and a larger passenger

compartment than a traditional passenger van, which provides for a center aisle for access 

to rearward seats. These options aid overall accessibility and expedite passenger loading 

and unloading. Passenger capacities offered range from 12-16 passengers, with the largest

option available recommended, as the incremental cost for higher capacity versions yield

more seats and flexibility within a similar footprint. 

Light Duty Shuttle (Cutaway) Bus 

Similar to the van based shuttles discussed above, light-duty shuttle buses (often referred 

to as “cutaways”) are economical buses built on top of mass-produced “stripped chassis” 

work-trucks supplied by major automotive manufacturers such as Ford or GM. By sharing

the same engine, cab, and frame for a plethora of vehicles ranging from utility and delivery 

trucks to buses and upscale limousines, secondary manufacturers are able to offer 

specialized vehicles at a reduced price due to them all sharing the same fundamental truck

platform. Cutaway shuttle buses are available with shorter or longer passenger 

compartments to facilitate the desired passenger capacity. A significant drawback to a

cutaway shuttle bus is the height of the truck chassis, which prevents the passenger from 

sitting low to the ground. Since the passenger compartment sits on top of the truck’s frame, 

entry requires climbing steps to access the vehicle. Light-duty shuttle buses offer a wide

array of possible sizes and configurations from 12 to 30 passengers or more, and range in 

price from $50,000 to over $200,000. Commercial bus dealers will have a wide range of 

available vehicles, engines and passenger capacities readily available. A typically

configured 24-passenger cutaway style shuttle bus costs between $85,000 and $130,000 

and are available with gasoline, diesel, and alternative fuel engines, depending on

manufacturer. Recent models built on Ford chassis may be available with battery-electric

drivetrains as well. 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 66 
 

Figure 20: Champion Bus Defender 

Source: GSA 

Discussion 

Anticipated demand for the proposed service is difficult to estimate; however, an existing 

service utilizes a traditional passenger van. The primary shortcomings of passenger vans 

are limited capacity, and difficult entry and exit through a sliding passenger door. A vanbased shuttle bus provides a more robust and flexible solution, as well as one with greater 

access for all users with entry and exit via a transit-style, full door opening, and satisfies

ADA requirements for transit vehicles operating in Federal lands. 

Larger vehicles may eventually be necessary should demand grow over time. If so, the

primary factor to consider is ensuring safe passage along the road to Exit Glacier. Should

larger vehicles be required for future service, consider narrow-bodied variants. 

FHWA/Volpe Center Kenai Fjords Summer Transportation Feasibility Study, 2019 67 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has the responsibility for most of our nationally 

owned public lands and natural resources. T his includes fostering sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, 

wildlife, and biological diversity; preservingthe environmental and cultural values of our parks and historic places; and providing 

for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. T he department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to 

ensure that their development is in the best interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in 

their care. T he department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live 

in island territories under U.S. administ ration. 

NPS PMIS# 220697A / 10 October 2019