National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Golden Gate National Recreation Area Muir Woods National Monument

MARIN / MUIR WOODS TRANSPORTATION PILOT PROJECTS 2005 REPORT

FINAL APRIL 2006

MARIN / MUIR WOODS TRANSPORTATION PILOT PROJECTS 2005 REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION 13 MUIR WOODS SHUTTLE BACKGROUND 14 ANALYSIS OF SUMMER 2005 SERVICE 15 SUMMER 2005 SERVICE SUCCESS - KEY FACTORS 17 NELSON NYGAARD SURVEY RESULTS 18 INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS (ITS) PILOT PROJECTS BACKGROUND 22

PROJECT #1: ELECTRONIC MESSAGE SIGNS (PCMS UNITS) BACKGROUND 23

OPERATIONS PLAN AND NPS-CALTRANS MOU 24 FIELD OPERATIONS – GENERAL 26

IMPACT ON MUIR WOODS VISITATION & SHUTTLE 28 STINSON BEACH ISSUES 30

PROJECT #2: “511” INTERNET AND PHONE INFORMATION BACKGROUND 31 511 APPLICATION 31

PROJECT #3: TRAFFIC COUNTERS BACKGROUND 33 TRAFFIC COUNTER DEPLOYMENT – SUMMER 2005 33

ANALYSIS OF TRAFFIC COUNTER DATA 36 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STAFF BACKGROUND AND SUMMER 2005 PROGRAM 38 CONCEPTUAL PLANNING FOR 2006 AND BEYOND OVERVIEW 40 MUIR WOODS SHUTTLE – SERVICE CHANGES 40 MUIR WOODS SHUTTLE – SERVICE EXPANSION / STOPS 40 MUIR WOODS SHUTTLE – SERVICE EXPANSION WEEKDAYS 42 MUIR WOODS SHUTTLE – FARE COLLLECTION 42 MUIR WOODS SHUTTLE – VISITOR FACILITIES 43 ITS PILOT PROJECTS – TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENTS 46 ITS PILOT PROJECTS – ADMIN & FINANCIAL CHALLENGES 48 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STAFF 50 APPENDICES 51

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Executive Summary provides information for managers, and those in need of a general understanding of the transportation pilot projects undertaken during the peak season (summer) 2005 at Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Muir Woods National Monument. The full report is most useful for implementation staff in need of a detailed understanding of the transportation pilot project.components.

Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) and Muir Woods National Monument (Muir Woods) are two spectacular parks located in the heart of the San Francisco Bay Area and managed by the National Park Service. Over 6 million people reside within a short distance from GGNRA and Muir Woods and over 17 million people visited the two parks in 2004. Transportation issues, especially roadway congestion on Shoreline Highway (SR 1), and parking congestion and visitation at Muir Woods have been present in Marin County for several years. An attempt to address these issues through the development of a large scale master plan project, known as the Southwest Marin Comprehensive Transportation Management Plan (CTMP) was terminated, and redirected into specific

projects to address key issues using “soft solutions” not focusing on significant capital improvements. Because both the general public and the CTMP participant agencies (National Park Service, Marin County, Caltrans, California State Parks) realized the status quo was unacceptable, the four agencies, with public support, decided to implement a series of small pilot transportation projects during 2005 to address some of the ongoing transportation issues. Five pilot projects were implemented through the efforts by the National Park Service, Marin County, Golden Gate Transit, Caltrans and California State Parks during the summer of 2005. The projects were:

• Muir Woods Shuttle • A deployment of portable

electric changeable message signs (PCMS units)

• A deployment of ‘511’ information via internet and telephone

• A deployment of traffic counters on key roads and park entrances

• The implementation of seasonal traffic management staff at Muir Woods and Stinson Beach.

This report analyzes the first season of operation for each of the five pilot transportation projects, and concludes with a section on conceptual planning for improvements to these projects for 2006 and beyond.

2

MUIR WOODS SHUTTLE Visitation to Muir Woods National Monument is between 900,000-1,000,000 annually with summer being the time of heaviest visitation. Only 179 parking spaces exist at Muir Woods, and over 50 years have passed since new parking was built on site. During that time, annual park visitation has doubled. Every day in summer and at several other times during the remainder of the year, visitors fill parking lots and overflow park along the roadside near the park entrance. Transportation provided by private companies charging market rates has always served the park, but a National Park Service goal has been to have public transit serve the park.

Shuttle Bus – 30 Foot Coach – 27 seats In 2005 Marin County committed $155,000 of federal funds to operate a pilot project FREE shuttle during the summer of 2005 and analyze the results. The shuttle was envisioned as the first year of a three-year pilot project for which $611,500 was set aside to determine if public shuttle service to Muir Woods was feasible, and to decide on a permanent solution. During 2005 service was operated by Golden Gate Transit under contract to Marin County on a 30-minute

schedule for most of the day and carried 10,219 passengers. ANALYSIS OF SUMMER 2005 SERVICE The general visitation pattern showed shuttle users arriving at Muir Woods in late morning and early afternoon and departing the park by late afternoon. Golden Gate Transit used 30-foot buses (27 passengers) on the shuttle which served three stops; Marin City Shopping Center, Pohono, and Manzanita Park and Ride on the way to Muir Woods. Travel time was 20-25 minutes each way between the origin stops and Muir Woods, and schedules were designed to meet up with Golden Gate Transit service on main line Route 70 / 80 and local Sausalito Routes 10 and 22 so to encourage transfers from the other transit services. Shuttle performance can be measured in several ways. An average of 310 passenger trips per day were recorded, with 680 trips on the busiest day. Overall the service operated at 38% of seated capacity and averaged 13 passengers per revenue hour. On busy days about 10-20 fewer cars used the informal roadside

parking, but on the busiest days this figure exceeded 25 cars. Two key factors critical to shuttle success were agency staff presence provided by GGNRA and Golden Gate Transit staff to assist shuttle passengers with information and directions, and passenger queuing at busy times, and the presence of portable electronic message signs that provided

3

parking information for the park prior to the shuttle stops.

NELSON NYGAARD CONSULTANTS SURVEY WORK

Marin County contracted with Nelson Nygaard Transportation Consultants to research and analyze the pilot project shuttle and, in 2005 their report, “Muir Woods Shuttle Evaluation” was released. The main body of the report summarizes the report highlights in greater detail, but for the summary some facts are noteworthy.

• 54% of Muir Woods visitors were overnight guests in the Bay Area, and 42% started their trip from San Francisco.

• 67% decided to visit Muir Woods within 1-2 days of the date of their actual visit.

• 40% of shuttle users vs. 70% of non-shuttle users desired to visit other places after visiting Muir Woods

• 70% accessed the shuttle by private car, 25% used connecting transit

• 30% learned about the shuttle by ‘word of mouth’, 22% saw electronic message signs, 16% read internet information

• 65% used the shuttle to avoid parking congestion, 45% to avoid traffic, 22% to aid the environment, 19% to save money, 17% no car available

• 70%-90% rated good or excellent the quality of service, cleanliness of buses, ease of transfers, and overall experience

The Nelson Nygaard Report was adopted by the Marin County Board of Supervisors in December 2005. Planning for 2006 service on the shuttle has been ongoing since the end of the 2005 season. _________________________________ INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS (ITS) PILOT PROJECTS

The concept of intelligent transportation systems (ITS) is comprised of a mixture of tools and technologies useful to manage transportation systems (e.g. highways, transit, parking, etc.) in an effort to utilize transportation infrastructure to perform at its highest level. In a park setting recreation travel is the primary traffic issue, and in this environment the application of ITS technologies that collect and disseminate information perform useful roles to manage visitor impacts, lessen environmental impacts, and improve the visitor experience. Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) staff assisted GGNRA staff with interim and long-term ITS applications, and concerning regional ITS architecture standards.

ITS PILOT PROJECT #1: PORTABLE ELECTRIC

CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGNS (PCMS UNITS)

GGNRA, the Western Transportation Institute at Montana State University (WTI), and the Caltrans Division of Research and Innovation (Caltrans R&I) collaborated on the first ITS project at GGNRA: the deployment of two portable electric changeable message signs (PCMS units). GGNRA and Sequoia-Kings Canyon were selected as project parks to test pilot ITS projects with the

4

following goals: 1) enhance the visitor experience, 2) assist in resource protection, and 3) improve management of the park transportation system. Following the ITS architecture development process, a series of transportation problems were analyzed with these goals as guiding principles. A pilot project that both fit into the Bay Area regional architecture and which would be of great benefit to GGNRA was selected. In 2004 WTI purchased two PCMS trailer mounted units that were slightly modified versions of a basic sign unit produced by the Ver-Mac Company at a cost of $25,000 per unit. The units were solar powered, equipped with a modem for cellular phone service to allow for remote operations, and had message panels with 3 lines each with 8 characters per line. Ownership was transferred to GGNRA in early 2005. GGNRA, WTI and Caltrans R&I agreed to deploy the PCMS units on right-of-way owned by Caltrans on US 101 in Marin County, and that development of an operations plan with input from local, county and state agencies representing law enforcement, fire management, and public works was a necessity.1 The Operations Plan had staff from several agencies working as the ‘eyes and ears’ of a network to report information back to a central point (National Park Service Presidio Communication Center) that controlled activation of the PCMS. Eight messages were drafted focusing on

traffic, parking congestion and emergencies. GGNRA later added a ninth message to the inventory. Messages were ranked for priority to avoid problems between competing requests and were limited in content to meet Caltrans standards for safety. In May 2005 Caltrans and GGNRA agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and an encroachment permit to allow the PCMS units to be placed on Caltrans right-of-way, but software problems with remote operations delayed deployment until July 1, 2005.

1 Agencies that participated in the development of an Operations Plan were GGNRA, WTI, Caltrans, Marin County Public Works, California State Parks, California Highway Patrol, Marin County Sheriff, Marin Municipal Water District, and South Marin Fire Protection District.

NPS Managed PCMS on US 101 NB Between July and September the PCMS units were activated on 39 different days, including every weekend day, and some weekdays. Continuing software problems resulted in a combination of manual (on-site) and remote operation via cellular phone service throughout the summer. Message #5, “MUIR WOODS --

5

PARKING FULL” was the most common message appearing 38 times. The shortage of parking at Muir Woods ensured the PCMS units were used every day, usually being in operation between 11:00 AM and 4:30 PM. Messages stating full parking conditions at Stinson Beach only and at both Muir Woods and Stinson Beach were also activated on a limited number of days. Field operations showed the ‘eyes and ears’ of the network to report traffic and parking conditions were a small group of GGNRA staff either dedicated to oversight of the pilot transportation projects or traffic management and not the larger diverse group envisioned in the Operations Plan. Due to ongoing software problems, planned weekday operation of the PCMS units was scaled back to only a few days primarily in early August. The performance of the PCMS units as an ITS element was noteworthy. Many park visitors altered their travel plans to visit the park at less crowded times, or they used the shuttle. In the Nelson Nygaard survey 22% of shuttle users stated they saw the electronic signs stating full parking at Muir Woods and then used the shuttle. Even more impressive was the fact that average daily Muir Woods Shuttle ridership increased by 300% once the PCMS units were deployed in July. Ridership at times overloaded shuttles shortly after they were activated each day resulting in standees and requiring GGNRA staff to temporarily deactivate Message #5 until conditions abated. By mid-August Golden Gate Transit added more service to accommodate the heavier peak-time passenger loads.

Stinson Beach is the one area where the question of activation of the message signs prior to a parking full condition (anticipatory activation) is an issue. Parking lots at Stinson Beach filled only a few times because of cool weather, requiring activation of Stinson Beach specific PCMS messages only three times during summer, but one weekend was unique and allowed an accidental test of anticipatory activation. During the hot weekend of July 23-24 parking filled to overflowing on both days, but on Saturday July 23, the PCMS units were prematurely activated by accident before the lots were full, whereas on Sunday, July 24 the PCMS units were activated only when the lots were actually full. A comparison of the two days showed congestion at the park and in the town was worse on Sunday, so it appears possible that an anticipatory activation of the PCMS units did reduce congestion at Stinson Beach.

ITS PILOT PROJECT #2: “511” INTERNET & PHONE

INFORMATION The ‘511’ travel information system, known informally as ‘511’ is sponsored by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). It allows public access via the internet or telephone to databases of real-time and stored transportation information. In summer 2005 visitors were able to access Muir Woods Shuttle schedules via ‘511’ at the MTC and Golden Gate Transit websites, and general shuttle information at the Muir Woods and GGNRA websites. The Nelson Nygaard survey showed 16% of shuttle users obtained information from the internet.

6

Beginning in mid-July, visitors were able to access real-time traffic and parking information for Muir Woods and Stinson Beach via the ‘511’ system. This was the result of a joint effort by MTC and GGNRA staff to implement recorded voice messages and internet map updates that were activated by MTC when conditions warranted following calls from GGNRA staff. MTC deactivated the messages and changed the maps when informed by GGNRA staff that conditions had abated. The information, which was not publicly advertised received only 37 requests for Stinson Beach information between July and Labor Day. The number of requests for Muir Woods information was not recorded because MTC could not modify the software to add Muir Woods to the list of locations that logged requests automatically. Finally, the reactivation of the Stinson Beach weather phone in 2005 after an absence of several seasons allowed visitors to get more detailed information regarding a visit to Stinson Beach if they desired. The recorded message phone number was included in the MTC ‘511’ messages for Stinson Beach.

ITS PILOT PROJECT #3: TRAFFIC COUNTERS

Nine traffic counters capable of recording time interval data were strategically deployed on key roadways and at entrances to individual park sites in an effort to measure the impacts of the multiple pilot transportation projects implemented during the summer 2005 season. The deployment plan attempted to repeat a summer 2004 baseline data

Traffic counter deployment – July 2005 collection effort when no pilot transportation projects were in place. Due to delays in obtaining the counters, they were not deployed until July, but once in the field, all counters collected and recorded data at 15 minute intervals for the remainder of the summer. The operation and maintenance of the counters was challenging requiring weekly monitoring of the equipment. Counter malfunctions resulted in some data gaps, but overall the counters performed well and a solid set of data was collected. Unfortunately, due to a later than planned counter deployment in July, some untimely counter malfunctions, and a limited Muir Woods Shuttle schedule that only operated on weekends, a relevant comparison of 2005 to 2004 data was possible on only 10 days. On those 10 days the pilot transportation projects did appear to have a minor positive impact on Muir Woods traffic as park visitation increased on 8 days, but traffic count data on SR 1 from US 101 decreased on 6 days of the same 8 days. The percentage change was within the margin of error of the counters, but the trend showing a traffic decrease on days when overall visitation increased is worth noting.

7

A comparison of traffic data from Tennessee Valley, Muir Beach and Stinson Beach showed no trends and was inconclusive. Analysis of peak hour or time period data to determine if ITS elements, especially activation of the PCMS units, reduced traffic for a short period was also found to be inconclusive. Therefore, while the PCMS units worked well to attract visitors to the Muir Woods Shuttle, they had at most a minor impact on traffic reduction, and the same data can be used to confirm that the Muir Woods Shuttle had at most a minor impact on traffic reduction. The deployment of traffic counters provided data to support the impacts of the ITS program, but it really showed larger efforts are needed for significant traffic reduction. The real benefit of deploying traffic counters in 2004 and 2005 will be realized in the future when this earlier data can be used as a baseline to measure effects of implementation of future transportation projects. _________________________________

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STAFF

During 2005 GGNRA, Marin County, and Golden Gate Transit provided added staff

to manage the pilot transportation projects or to directly manage traffic at sensitive locations at Muir Woods and Stinson Beach. GGNRA added one seasonal Ranger to manage traffic at Muir Woods, offered overtime to Rangers to perform traffic management on busy weekends, and adjusted work schedules to allow roving planning staff to work on weekends. Marin County posted a Deputy Sherriff Parking Control Officer on weekends in Stinson Beach, while Golden Gate Transit Bus Field Operations Supervisors and drivers worked overtime on several occasions with minimal notice to provide additional shuttle service to meet higher demand. The direct and absorbed costs incurred by each agency, and an explanation of their calculation is included in the main report.

Traffic management at Muir Woods

8

Map of 2005 Pilot Transportation Projects

Legend

Pilot Project Study Area PCMS Locations (2) Traffic Counter Locations (9) Muir Woods Shuttle Stops (3)

Muir Woods Shuttle Route

9

CONCEPTUAL PLANNING FOR 2006 AND BEYOND

MUIR WOODS SHUTTLE

Following the success of the pilot transportation project effort in 2005, each of the participant agencies is planning to repeat or expand its pilot transportation projects in 2006 and beyond. Marin County considered recommendations by Nelson Nygaard Consultants to expand service on the Muir Woods Shuttle by extending the service route to Sausalito, adding a stop at Muir Beach, and by operating service on a 20-minute schedule rather than on 30-minute schedule, but decided to retain the 2005 route, and 30-minute service, although they decided to maintain 30-minute service for the entire day. The Nelson Nygaard proposed changes would have required 2-3 more buses, which Golden Gate Transit would have had to acquire. Ensuring enough 30-foot buses are present to provide service is a continuing challenge facing both Marin County and Golden Gate Transit. Golden Gate Transit has considered testing 35-foot buses for shuttle service, but service on this type of vehicle this does not appear likely in 2006. Any long-term plan to reduce traffic congestion and lessen or eliminate overflow parking during the summer at Muir Woods will require both weekday and weekend shuttle service, but weekday operation of the Muir Woods Shuttle is not proposed for 2006. Weekday shuttle service will cost approximately 2-3 times as much as weekend shuttle service at similar service levels.

The issue of cost led to a proposal by Marin County, which was subsequently approved, to begin charging fares on the shuttle. Preliminary analysis by park staff shows the fare is not expected to raise significant amounts of revenue, although it does represent a test of visitor willingness to use a paid shuttle as an alternative to driving to the park. Analysis of likely projected revenue assuming the approved Fare ($2 - adults, $1 – seniors and ages 6-18), and 2005 passenger levels resulted in a projected farebox return of 18% or less of operations. A danger with fare collection is that it could significantly dampen visitor interest in the shuttle.

Passenger Standing at Shuttle Stop The need to improve visitor facilities and amenities is a major challenge facing Marin County Golden Gate Transit and GGNRA. Three bus stops need shelters and seating, two need access to restrooms, and all four need improved public information. Priority should be given to ensuring that shelters, seating and restroom facilities are present at all stops. Prefabricated shelters cost about $7,500 per unit, and GGNRA has an existing contract with a firm to provide portable restrooms for about $1,500 per unit for the summer.

10

The provision of food and visitor contact staff is a more challenging, and probably long-term goal that would enhance the comfort of shuttle users. Currently vacant space exists at the Marin City Shopping Center and Shoreline Office Park with a monthly rental price of $3.00-$4.00 per square foot and multiple spaces about 1,000 square feet in size being available. Use of a dedicated section of the Marin City Shopping Center parking lot for shuttle parking is a promising concept because the lot has a design that encourages the relocation of the shuttle stop from the transit center to the central retail area, which would allow for decentralized shuttle parking.

INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION

SYSTEMS (ITS) The implementation of ITS projects at GGNRA presents challenges and opportunities. For 2006 plans are to repeat the 2005 ITS pilot projects, and to expand into new technology areas depending upon available funds. GGNRA is considering deployment of web-cameras at Muir Woods and Stinson Beach that can provide “real-time” visual parking information via the internet, and providing links to privately owned web-cameras located on private lands adjacent to parkland that can provide visual weather conditions at popular beach locations (Muir Beach, Stinson Beach).

The deployment of highway advisory radio (HAR) is more likely in 2007 or later. HAR has often been used to perform an interpretation role in several national parks for many years. HAR costs about $20,000 per fixed transmitter site to set up, but a system can be designed that uses portable transmitters. Deployment in the Marin County areas of the park would require multiple transmitter sites to be effective. It may be possible to tie into the existing Caltrans HAR system that broadcasts at 840 AM, or parallel the Pt. Reyes broadcasts at 1610 AM. Other ITS technology that could be deployed in the future includes remote controlled traffic counters that can transmit data to be used to activate PCMS

units or an HAR transmitter. A deployment of this type of an ITS system would require infrastructure consisting of traffic counters, PCMS units or flashing message signs, HAR transmitters, video cameras, and the means to maintain and manage all of it. The benefit would be to provide park visitors with an abundance of real-time information from multiple sources to allow them to play a vital role in managing access and limiting congestion to park sites with minimal assistance from GGNRA staff.

11

The greatest ITS challenge is to design a system that is administratively and financially sustainable. Administration issues include the determination of staff duties and levels, as well as the determination of the best internal department to manage ITS on an ongoing basis. An attempt to use intermittent staff management and a decentralized data collection and information sharing effort by GGNRA field staff (law enforcement, interpretation, and maintenance), to operate the 2005 ITS pilot project was not effective, because existing work priorities among staff left little time to perform ITS work. Direct field management by transportation staff was required every day for the ITS pilot projects to be successful. Therefore, it appears the proper management of an effective ITS system requires active and direct management by dedicated staff, and that staff must spend much of their time in the field during times of peak visitation.. GGNRA could address this challenge by creating a prototype vision of ITS management tailored to a large national park that attempts to strike a balance between remote ITS operations and active field management, and then assign the duties to one or more GGNRA staff. As work duties change, assignment of duties can change. GGNRA should embed ITS software management programs into the main computer system or create a parallel system, so these can be accessed by staff (password protected) from any location in the park with a computer and the internet. Software that performs coordination and management is commercially available.

The proposed work duties would require reclassification of an existing position, or the creation of a new position. However, given the importance of traffic and parking in relation to park operations and possible safety and visitor access impacts, a strong argument can be made for this being a recommended action. The same factors added to requirements to address field transportation issues and manage ITS equipment in the proposed in the Marin Headlands – Fort Baker Transportation Plan make an argument for GGNRA to consider the establishment of a new position or the reclassification of an existing position in the GS-2130 Series of Transportation Manager, and that the position is placed with the Law Enforcement or Interpretation Division. The finance issue includes providing funding for sustainable efforts in ITS planning, capital funding, and operations / maintenance. ITS technology covers a range of equipment and expenses, and is in constant change. Research to determine estimated capital and maintenance cost alternatives is essential. A draft capital and implementation plan is a goal for 2006.

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STAFF The provision of seasonal Ranger staff by GGNRA and Deputy Sheriff staff in 2005 by Marin County to perform traffic management at Muir Woods and Stinson Beach was a success. At both locations the added staff acted to discourage illegal parking and direct traffic which allowed roadways and parking areas to operate more smoothly. This action should be replicated for 2006 if funding can be secured by both agencies.

12

INTRODUCTION Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) was established in 1972 and presently covers over 75,000 acres in the San Francisco Bay Area. The park is comprised of several separate sites spread across portions of San Francisco, San Mateo and Marin counties. Marin County is also the location of Muir Woods National Monument (Muir Woods), a 562 acre park established in 1908. GGNRA has managed Muir Woods since 1974.

Over 6 million people reside within a one hour drive of GGNRA and Muir Woods. Over 17 million people visited GGNRA and Muir Woods in 2004 making it one of the busiest national park areas in the nation. Transportation issues including traffic congestion, parking congestion and limited access by public transit service have been long standing issues in certain park areas located in Marin County, including Muir Woods, for many years. A large scale multi-agency planning effort: the Southwest Marin Comprehensive Transportation Management Plan (CTMP) attempted to develop a master plan to address these issues, but the planning process was stopped and redirected in

early 2005. The CTMP participant agencies (National Park Service, Marin County, Caltrans, and California State Parks) and the majority of the participating general public agreed that lower cost, limited construction pilot projects should be tested before further work on a large-scale comprehensive plan is considered. The pilot transportation projects implemented by the National Park Service and Marin County during the summer of 2005 started in late May and concluded in late September, with all cooperating parties interested in maintaining or expanding the scope of projects in 2006. Five pilot projects were implemented through the efforts by the National Park Service, Marin County, Golden Gate Transit, Caltrans and California State Parks during the summer of 2005. The projects were:

• The Muir Woods Shuttle • A deployment of portable

electronic dynamic message signs (DMS units)

• A deployment of ‘511’ information via internet and telephone

• A deployment of traffic counters on key roads and park entrances

• The implementation of seasonal traffic and parking control staff at Muir Woods and Stinson Beach.

The pilot project effort resulted in the opportunity for a different visitor experience and in many ways, a slightly improved experience for local residents as compared to summer 2004, or other recent years.

13

The most visible project was the Muir Woods Shuttle; funded by Marin County and operated by Golden Gate Transit with assistance from GGNRA staff, and the operation of electric changeable message signs by GGNRA staff to warn visitors of congested parking and roadways at Marin park sites. Less visible, but other important projects were the implementation and oversight by GGNRA staff of recorded phone messages on the ‘511’ traveler information system managed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the deployment and maintenance of traffic counters by GGNRA staff to record the

impacts of these other systems on traffic in the Highway 1 / Panoramic Highway Corridor, and the additional staffing of traffic management personnel by the Marin County Sheriff and GGNRA at Stinson Beach and Muir Woods to directly address traffic congestions problems. This report analyzes the first season of operation for each of the five pilot transportation projects, and concludes with a section on conceptual planning for improvements to these projects for 2006 and beyond.

=============================================================================

MUIR WOODS SHUTTLE

BACKGROUND Visitation to Muir Woods National Monument is between 900,000-1,000,000 annually2, and is highest in the summer (peak season). Heavy visitation is often

Coast Redwoods at Muir Woods

nd around the world come to this “must

.Visitor overflow parking at Muir Woods

2 Actual paid visitation is around 850,000, but some visitors arrive at times early in the morning or later in the evening when the entrance station is closed and do not appear on the official tally. The additional visitation estimate is based on spot counts performed by staff.

present in spring and in fall (shoulder season) as people from the United Statesa see” site on a visit to San Francisco. To accommodate visitors only 179 formal parking spaces exist at Muir Woods, and no formal parking has been added since the 1950s when visitation was about half of what it is today. Every day during the summer and on several days in the spring and fall, visitors fill parking lots by late morning and overflow park along the roadside until late afternoon.

…

14

Currently about 8-10% of visitors use transportation provided by private tour companies to access the park. Private carrier transportation has been available to Muir Woods since the park was established in 1908, but with the exception of a brief period in the mid-1970s, it has always been offered by private companies charging market rate fares.3 Over the years the companies have changed from the Mt. Tamalpais Railroad to Greyhound and finally exclusively to private tour companies.

1914 Tourist Railroad Advertisement Although private companies have been financially successful and the volume of passengers they carry helps to lessen traffic congestion in the peak season, it has been a longstanding goal of the National Park Service to have public transit serve the park. Although the issue has been studied for many years, service was not implemented because a fully developed plan that was both financially sustainable and acceptable to multiple public agencies, and the general public had not been approved.

3 Public transit service was offered on a trial basis by Golden Gate Transit during 1977-78, but service ended when a sustainable source of funds could not be secured to cover costs of operation

However, in winter 2005 Marin County acted to commit federal funds (Federal Transportation Administration grant) at a cost of $115,000 to operate a pilot project FREE shuttle for the summer of 2005 on weekends and holidays between Memorial Day and Labor Day. An additional $40,000 was approved to collect data and analyze the pilot shuttle program at the end of the season. Marin County plans are to fund three years of pilot project shuttle service at a total cost of $611,500, to determine if a public shuttle is feasible, and to use the information and experience gained to plan for a long-term sustainable solution. During the summer 2005 season, the service was operated by Golden Gate Transit under contract to Marin County on a 30-minute schedule between 9:00 AM – 4:00 PM with a couple of later buses, and carried 10,219 passengers. _________________________________

ANALYSIS OF SUMMER 2005

SERVICE The general visitation pattern had most park visitors / shuttle users arriving at Muir Woods in late morning and early afternoon and departing by mid-late afternoon. Use levels on inbound afternoon trips to the park in the early afternoon and on outbound evening trips away from the park were higher than anticipated by Marin County, Golden Gate Transit or GGNRA and frequently resulted in overloaded trips. These problems required the insertion of extra service on a regular basis throughout the summer to avoid pass-ups, overloaded trips, and stranded passengers at Muir Woods at days end.

15

Golden Gate Transit was required to use 30-foot buses with a seated capacity of 27 passengers each. Shuttles served stops on the way to Muir Woods: the Marin City Shopping Center, a roadside stop on Highway 1 near the Shoerline Office Park and Felton Parking Lot owned by Marin County (Pohono Stop), and at the Manzanita Park and Ride Lot owned by Caltrans. Shuttle service totaled 15 trips in each direction and operated on a 30-minute schedule between 9:30AM and 3:30PM, with two later trips scheduled at 5:30PM and 7:00PM. Travel time between Manzanita and Muir Woods was 20 minutes in either direction, or 25 minutes each way between Marin City and Muir Woods. Shuttle schedules were designed to meet up with Golden Gate Transit service on trunk lines Routes 70 and 80 to/from San Francisco and Northern Marin / Sonoma County, and Routes 10 and 22 to/from Sausalito so that transfers could be realized with a minimum of delay.

Muir Woods Shuttle Map Schematic Drawing

Performance can be measured in several ways. During the period of operation a total of 10,219 passenger trips were recorded, which equates to an average of 310 passenger trips per day, or

approximately 155 visitors. 4 Ridership noticeably increased following the implementation of the portable changeable message signs on the Independence Day weekend. (See Figure 1). The busiest single day was Sunday, July 23 when 680 passengers were carried. The capacity of the buses if all trips carried full seated loads equaled 26,370, so overall the service operated at about 38% of seated capacity. However, several bus trips operated empty without any passengers, while several other trips carried standees because they were over 100% full.

Muir Woods

Manzanita

Marin City

U.S. 101

Muir Woods Shuttle Timetable

1 mile Another performance measure of transit productivity is ‘passengers per revenue hour’. During summer the service averaged 10 passengers per revenue hour (1,025 hours of service / 10,219

4 A passenger trip is defined as a one-way trip on a transit vehicle. Therefore passenger levels are not synonymous with park visitor level data. Most Muir Woods passengers require two trips during a visit to the park: one inbound to the park, and one outbound to return to their origin.

16

passengers). The summer can be broken into two sections; before and after the implementation of the electronic message signs. Before the message signs were in use, the shuttle averaged 4 passengers per revenue hour, but after the changeable message signs were activated, the figure rose to 12 passengers per revenue hour before tailing off at the end of summer.

Figure 1 – Impact of PCMS on shuttles Assuming an average of 2.5 passengers per vehicle as the average occupancy for Muir Woods meant that about 90-100+ cars did not venture out to Muir Woods that otherwise would have made the trip if the shuttle was not in operation on busy days. (450+/- trips / 2 = 225 round trips / 2.5 passenger per vehicle). This figure can be further analyzed using a curve that duplicates the visitation arrival pattern to estimate the number of vehicles that were prevented from using overflow parking along the roadside. On busy days, due to the presence of the shuttle, approximately 10-20 fewer cars used the informal roadside parking along Redwood Creek at any moment in time between 10:00AM-4:00PM. On the very busiest days this figure probably exceeded 25 cars.

SUMMER 2005 SERVICE SUCCESS

- KEY FACTORS Two key factors that were critical to the success of the pilot shuttle project were agency presence as provided by GGNRA roving transportation staff, and Golden Gate Transit staff to assist shuttle users, and the presence of portable electric message signs (PCMS units) that provided parking availability information for the park prior to the shuttle stops. Muir Woods Shuttle - Passengers per Revenue hour

0.00

4.00

8.00

12.00

16.00

20.00 GGNRA roving transportation staff positioned in the field to perform work related to other transportation projects also performed visitor use assistant duties by helping visitors and addressing service issues at the shuttle stops at Manzanita, Pohono and Marin City in the morning and early afternoon, and at Muir Woods later in the day. They answered questions, provided traffic directions, assured visitors the shuttle was safe, directed confused visitors to bus stops, and they ensured order was maintained as large numbers of passengers waited for the shuttles at times during the day. They updated GGNRA staff regarding shuttle operations, road conditions, etc., and were in contact with the Golden Gate Transit as needed to request or cancel extra service. Similar interactive visitor duties were often performed by Golden Gate Transit shuttle drivers and Field Operations Supervisors. The other key factor that contributed to shuttle success was the impact of the portable changeable message signs which is discussed separately later.

17

NELSON NYGAARD SURVEY RESULTS

Shuttle Origin LocationsOther 15%

Other Bay Area 14%

East Bay 11%Marin County

18%

S.F. 42%Marin County contracted with Nelson Nygaard Transportation Consultants to conduct research of shuttle users and general park visitors during the summer season. Over 940 surveys were collected from shuttle users, and 240 surveys were collected from non-shuttle users. Nelson Nygaard produced a report titled ‘Muir Woods Shuttle Evaluation’ that summarized data obtained from the survey work in fall 2005. Some of the key facts are reprinted here in a slightly different format. ORIGIN INFORMATION & POST MUIR

WOODS VISIT DESTINATION The origin of shuttle users was consistent with data collected during the Southwest. Marin Comprehensive Transportation Management (CTMP) effort. About 34% of this group started their trip from their own home, while 54% started their trip from a hotel/motel or someone else’s home, which can generally be inferred that they are a non-Bay Area resident visiting the area. The first fact helps to

explain the high percentage of shuttle users from San Francisco (42%), as compared to Marin County (18%), and the East Bay (11%) as there is much more visitor lodging in San Francisco than in the other counties. Trip origin data is important to determine the best methods to provide visitor information (static and real-time information) to park visitors due

to the very high number of visitors (67%) that decide to visit Muir Woods either on the day of their visit, or the day before. Due to the time commitment required to use the shuttle, information regarding where visitors desired to go following their visit to Muir Woods was considered important data. There was a distinct difference between shuttle and non-shuttle users in this area. Over 40% of shuttle users planned to visit another place prior to returning to their home or hotel. The most popular sites mentioned were San Francisco (40%) and Sausalito (16%). No other single site received more than 5%. By comparison, 70% of non-shuttle users (either local or from outside of the Bay Area) were more likely to visit another place after Muir Woods, with the most popular sites being San Francisco (16%), West Marin area (20%), Sausalito (16%), and Napa/Wine Country (12%). Shuttle Origin Accommodations

Stay in own home 34%

Hotel / Motel / Guest in

home 54%

Other 12%

ACCESS TO THE SHUTTLE /

ACCESS TO MUIR WOODS BY PRIVATE VEHICLE / ADA ACCESS /

EQUIPMENT CARRIED BY PASSENGERS

Most visitors (70%) accessed the shuttle by private vehicle, with 27% using their own vehicle (car, truck, etc.), 29% using a rental car, and 14% being a passenger in a vehicle driven by someone else (private or rental). These figures show that the approximate split between privately owned and rental cars was about 50/50.

18

A surprisingly high number of visitors accessed the shuttle by using transit service (25%) provided by Golden Gate Transit (Routes 10, 22, 70, 80). Some visitors took the time and effort to use the Golden Gate Ferry to Sausalito, transfer to Route 10 or 22, and then transfer to the shuttle. About 5% utilized bicycles, walking or were dropped off at a shuttle stop.

An overwhelming number of non-shuttle users drove a private vehicle to visit Muir Woods (90%). Similar to the group that used private vehicles to access the shuttle, the use of private vehicles was split between privately owned vehicles, rental cars, and visitors that received a ride in a vehicle driven by another person. Under 2% of shuttle users and about 7% of non-shuttle users had a disabled person in their party, and wheelchair boarding of the shuttle were very rare. Although all four bus stops (Marin City, Manzanita, Pohono and Muir Woods) were in compliance with ADA regulations, access to the stops from nearby parking had deficiencies at Manzanita. As a general rule, the more equipment carried by visitors, the more difficult it is to get them to use transit or a shuttle service. Over 90% of shuttle users either had items that could fit into a backpack or carried no items at all with them on their visit. Larger items were left in vehicles at

the parking areas. Bicyclists were able to be accommodated on the Golden Gate Transit buses, each of which was equipped with a bike rack (capacity two bicycles). In a few instances, a bicyclist was required to wait for a later bus because the bike rack was full. BASIC DEMOGRAPHIC STATISTICS OF

VISITORS SURVEYED Basic demographic questions were also asked by Nelson Nygaard staff. The ages of shuttle users surveyed were: 18-49 (65%), under 17 (17%), 50-65 (16%), and over 65 (2%). Non-shuttle users were categorized as follows: 18-49 (68%), under 17 (5%), 50-65 (23%), and over 65 (6%). Young children were not questioned, so it is likely that the figures are slightly skewed. The average incomes of Muir Woods visitors (both shuttle users and non-shuttle users) was higher than the Marin County average. The household incomes of shuttle users were: over $100,000 (37%), $50,000-$100,000 (34%), $25,000-$50,000 (16%), and under $25,000 (16%). The household incomes of non-shuttle users were: over 100,000 (50%), $50,000-$100,000 (37%), $25,000-$50,000 (8%) and under $25,000 (6%). Surveyed visitors were allowed to select more than one option on this question, so the overall total exceeded 100%.

Access Mode to Shuttle

Private Vehiclel

(including rental cars)

70%Golden Gate Transit 25%

Pedestrian / Bike 5%

PASSENGER PERCEPTIONS

AND INFORMATION A major issue of concern was reaching potential passengers with key information so they could become aware of the shuttle and use the service. This issue is more important than it may appear because while Muir Woods is considered to be a

19

key Bay Area tourist spot, surveys have shown that year after year a high number of Muir Woods visitors are first-time visitors to the park (50% or more), and that repeat visits are relatively low compared to repeat visits at other GGNRA sites that are favored by local residents. This fact impacts the visitor data listed below, and represents a challenge as well as an opportunity to park managers.

INFORMATION AND MARKETING The information issue was addressed at several levels. GGNRA, the Golden Gate Parks Conservancy and Marin County approved a Muir Woods identification logo copyrighted by Michael Schwab that the public could associate with the shuttle service. The logo was used on 15,000 shuttle timetable brochures, on internet sites, and as identification markings attached to the sides of the buses used for the shuttle service. The timetable brochures were used by media consultants hired by Marin County to perform direct marketing to hotel concierges and front desk staff, and they were distributed to the San Francisco and Marin County Chambers of Commerce, along with other selected groups during the summer. Both Golden Gate Transit and the National Park Service updated their internet sites (GGNRA and Muir Woods) with shuttle information two weeks prior to the implementation of the new service. Marin County completed the placement of over a dozen new blue and white “static” information signs informing motorists on U.S. Highway 101 and California State Route 1 of the existence of the new shuttle. Smaller signs off the

same design guided visitors to parking areas and shuttle bus stops. A little over a month after the Muir Woods Shuttle began service, GGNRA deployed two electronic changeable message signs at locations so they were visible long in advance of motorists seeing the blue and white shuttle signs. Finally, in mid-summer following work between GGNRA and staff at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), shuttle information was added to the ‘511’ Bay Area travel information system.

Marin County Shuttle Sign The result of all of this information being broadcast to the general public was positive and no complaints were received regarding the implementation of new shuttle service. Survey data showed the most powerful message source was “word of mouth” or second-hand information passed from friends or family on to persons planning to visit the park (30%), followed by he message signs / highway signs (22%), and information gleaned from internet websites (16%). Other sources cited by visitors included, the Sausalito information booth, hotel concierges, tourist guides, and Golden Gate Transit bus drivers. Survey respondents also added that the best ways for them to receive information of this type were via internet websites (40%),

20

via information at bus stops (25%), via direct mail and printed media (newspapers) (10%), and via notices on the bus (10%).

Information Boards at Shuttle Stops The reasons Muir Woods visitors offered for taking the shuttle were diverse, but showed a common theme of concern over roadways and parking, and a concern for the environment. Survey respondents were allowed to select more than one response from the list offered so the total exceeds 100%. The results were: to avoid looking for parking (65%), to avoid driving in traffic (45%), better for the environment (22%), to save money (19%), I didn’t know how to get to Muir Woods myself (19%), because no car was available (17%), to save time (12%), and because the message sign said parking was full (9%). The survey responses are not entirely in line with the passenger level statistics that showed a 300% increase in shuttle use following the deployment of the electronic message signs, but it could be assumed that if visitors had primary concerns about

parking and traffic, the message sign could have acted as a tipping point mechanism to move them to decide not to drive to the park – especially since an alternative shuttle was readily available. A very high number of shuttle users said they would use the shuttle again if it were available when they visited Muir Woods (80%), while only a very small number said they would definitely not use it again (2%). As stated above, surveys have shown the number of first time visitors to Muir Woods is consistently high, and this survey followed that pattern with a large majority of shuttle users stating this visit was their first to Muir Woods (70%). If the shuttle had not been an option, a majority of shuttle users would have either driven their own vehicle or a rental car to the park (57%), or been a passenger in a vehicle driven by someone else (12%). A sizable group said they would not have made the trip to the park at all (19%); a figure which closely corresponds to the number of shuttle users that did not have access to a car (17%). The visitors to Muir Woods that did not take the shuttle were much less aware of its existence than the shuttle user group. A total of 75% of the non-shuttle users did not know that a shuttle operated to Muir Woods. The majority of this group did say they would consider using the shuttle in the future (65%), but a solid 20% of non-shuttle users stated they had no interest in using a shuttle to access Muir Woods now or in the future. The most common reasons offered for not being interested in the shuttle included, the shuttle is not going to my next destination / I am not

21

returning to where I started (14%), the trip would take too long (4%), the shuttle stops are inconvenient (4%). A large number (18%) offered reasons that did not fit into a specific pre-selected category. The survey respondents had a positive view of the shuttle service as each of the survey elements received ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ ratings. The quality of the shuttle buses, the condition of the shuttle buses, driver courtesy, and on-time performance all received a favorable rating of 90% or better, even though actual on-time performance was only

about 70%. Ease of transfers between buses, safety and security and convenience of bus stops also received favorable ratings of 80% or better. Frequency of service and information at the bus stops both received favorable ratings of over 70%. The Nelson Nygaard Report was adopted by the Marin County Board of Supervisors in December 2005. Planning for 2006 service on the shuttle has been ongoing since the end of the 2005 season.

================================================================

INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION

SYSTEMS (ITS)

PILOT PROJECTS

BACKGROUND The concept of intelligent transportations systems (ITS) is comprised of a mixture of older and relatively new tools and technologies that are useful to manage transportation systems (e.g. highways, transit, parking, etc.). The array of system elements use both direct intervention and passive intervention in an effort to utilize transportation infrastructure to perform at its highest level, and / or to offer an advantage to one system element over other system elements, so that overall system operations are improved. In a park setting visitor recreation travel is generally the primary issue and a combination of roadways, parking areas and limited transit service are the critical

transportation system elements in need of management. In this environment the application of ITS technologies that collect and disseminate information can perform useful roles in managing visitor related impacts, maintaining or lessening environmental impacts to natural and cultural resources, and in improving the visitor experience. Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) staff generously assisted GGNRA staff when help was sought concerning possible ITS applications within the park. MTC staff was especially helpful in providing review to ensure that any potential NPS ITS applications were in conformity with ITS regional architecture standards, and they worked out ‘interim’ solutions to incorporate NPS-provided traffic information into their larger regional information system. _________________________________

22

ITS PROJECT #1: ELECTRIC MESSAGE SIGNS (PCMS UNITS)

BACKGROUND

GGNRA became involved in its first ITS project through the efforts of the Western Transportation Institute (WTI), located at Montana State University in Bozeman, MT and the Caltrans Division of Research and Innovation (Caltrans R&I). Phase 1 of the WTI project has been recorded by WTI in a document titled “Assessing and Identifying Locations for ITS Applications in California’s National Parks”. WTI and Caltrans selected Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park to represent a rural traditional large national park environment with a high level of destination visitors, and Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) to represent a more urbanized park environment with a high level of day-use visitors. Phase 1 also set up the framework for ITS applications where the concept of ITS architecture was addressed and explained, and the process of the selection of NPS site specific ‘goals’, ‘objectives’ and ‘themes’ were addressed and clarified. GGNRA focused on three goals: 1) enhance the visitor experience,

2) assist in resource protection, and 3) improve management of the park transportation system. Under these three goals eleven objectives with twenty-six sub-objectives were identified. When the objective and sub-objectives were re-bundled together seven themes emerged that were tasked with solving eight key problems. For a graphical description and list of objectives, sub-objective and themes see Appendix A. To bundle the needs into themes was important because national ITS Architecture concepts have been developed that list market packages and associated user services applicable to a particular theme. These elements and the hardware and management strategies that comprise the element become the core of an ITS application, and provide it with a framework to expand or contract while remaining consistent with a national standard, or in some instances a regional standard. Following several meetings and research that utilized data available due to the CTMP effort during 2002-2003, WTI, Caltrans and the NPS selected the two pilot projects to be tested as part of the study. Phase 2 of the WTI project has been recorded by WTI in a document titled ‘Feasibility Report for Early Winner Project Concepts’. Out of nine ITS concepts, GGNRA selected the implementation of two portable electronic changeable message signs (PCMS units) that would flash brief messages using an electronic signboard situated on the roadside at key locations prior to visitors entering a congested area of the park. Sequoia-Kings Canyon NP chose to focus

23

on improvements to their highway advisory radio (HAR) system that is useful to provide information for park visitors via a special radio frequency. After the decision regarding the specific ITS pilot project to deploy at GGNRA in January 2004, many steps were required to address Caltrans, WTI and GGNRA requirements prior to the placement of the signs in the field. Following a bid process, in early 2004 WTI purchased two PCMS trailer mounted units (Model 1584) manufactured by the Ver-Mac Company located in Quebec, Canada at a cost of $25,000 per unit. The message board sections of the units were sized for 3 lines of text, with 8 characters per line up to 8” high for a total of 24 characters per screen, and the units were painted white instead of orange so they would be less visually intrusive in the roadway landscape. Differences were required in some internal operations hardware so a test of newly developed ‘universal software’ that would allow for the same software to be used on multiple PCMS units regardless of manufacturer could be tested. The development of universal software was a WTI goal to allow the same software to be used on units produced by different manufacturers. The sign elements of the PCMS units were solar powered with battery storage capacity, and contained a modem for cellular phone service to allow for remote operation. Ownership of the units was transferred from WTI to Caltrans and then to GGNRA in early 2005. This work took much longer than anticipated, but the PCMS units were

finally deployed for the 2005 summer peak season.

OPERATIONS PLAN AND NPS – CALTRANS MOU

Although the signs were GGNRA-owned, it was a widely held belief by GGNRA, Caltrans and WTI staff that the best location for their use would be on highway right of way owned by Caltrans on US 101 in Marin County since it is the primary access route from the populated areas of the Bay Area to the rural parklands and beaches of Marin County, and the point at which a decision to alter plans to visit parks sites could be most easily changed based on congestion information displayed on the PCMS units.

Multi-agency staff meeting to draft Operations Plan

Field Training on PCMS Operations

The three parties realized GGNRA does not own much roadway in this part of the park and that PCMS units deployed on US 101 could benefit other public agencies in addition to GGNRA, so overtures were made to seek participation from other

24

nearby agencies to develop an operations plan. The final group involved with this project included representatives from GGNRA, Caltrans, WTI, Marin County Public Works, California State Parks, California Highway Patrol, Marin County Sheriff, Marin Municipal Water District, and Southern Marin Fire Protection District. The attempt to coordinate these stakeholders required a large investment in time, but in the end resulted in a clear set of guidelines and policies supported by all. The Operations Plan approved by the participants in early 2005 envisioned staff from this diverse group of agencies working as the ‘eyes and ears’ of a network to report traffic, parking, and if necessary, emergency information back to day to day operations management staff located a central point of control who in turn would activate the PCMS units to display the appropriate message. Initially it was thought that the Caltrans Transportation Management Center (TMC) staff in Oakland would control day to day operations of the PCMS units, but GGNRA staff did not favor this plan due to the large amount of duties and responsibilities TMC staff has for managing PCMS units for the entire Bay Area region, and the small size of TMC staff. The concern was that TMC staff would be too busy with general Bay Area traffic problems to be able to quickly and regularly respond to GGNRA traffic issues. Another arrangement considered but ultimately rejected would have had long-range management of the PCMS units reside with GGNRA, but would have had day to day operations management

reside with Marin County Emergency Services, due to the large role Marin County Public Works and the Marin County Sheriff hold as law enforcement and emergency service providers in the area. In the final plan Marin County staff approved GGNRA management of all aspects of the PCMS operation after staff from the Presidio Communications Center (CC) voiced a strong desire to operate the PCMS signs and to work as an information coordinator for all participant agencies. A total of eight messages that were in accordance with Caltrans standards for PCMS unit operation were drafted for possible display on the PCMS units. A ninth message was adopted by GGNRA staff in mid-summer on an experimental basis to convey information for a particular set of circumstances. (See Appendix B for the list of approved messages). The three areas of focus were traffic, parking congestion and emergencies. To ward off a potential problem between competing requests for different messages, the participants agreed to a ranking priority for messages, with messages providing emergency information being ranked the highest. Caltrans could also request messages to be displayed for non-park area related traffic issues. Due to the design features of the display board, messages were limited to 8 characters per line, or a total of 24 characters per screen. Per Caltrans standards, messages were set to flash every two seconds, and messages were limited to two flashes on the board. These standards were adopted because traffic studies had shown that two flashes

25

were the maximum most vehicle drivers could safely read while at speed on a freeway. Although Caltrans was a partner on the PCMS pilot project, because GGNRA owned the signs, the physical placement of the PCMS units on state owned highway right-of-way still required a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Caltrans and GGNRA, and the issuance of an encroachment permit by Caltrans. The MOU was a first step that addressed all sorts of issues regarding the rights and liabilities of the two parties in the event of emergencies, accidents, theft, etc. It took longer than anticipated to reach an agreement as legal and contract staffs at both agencies were required to review the MOU language, but in mid-May 2005 an MOU that was acceptable to both parties was agreed upon. (See Appendix L for a copy of the MOU.) The encroachment permit was more concerned with safety issues. Prior to applying for the permit, GGNRA and Caltrans staff reached an agreement regarding four possible locations (two northbound and two southbound) where the PCMS units could be placed on Highway 101. Per Caltrans standards the units needed to be completely off on the road shoulder, and they could not block road signs or roadside emergency call boxes. The key GGNRA issues were that the signs needed to be as visible as possible, and the selected locations needed to be far enough in advance of roadway exits to allow park visitors enough time to absorb the message and make a decision to continue on with their visit or adjust their travel plans.

FIELD OPERATIONS - GENERAL Although four locations were approved in the encroachment permit, GGNRA had only two PCMS units to deploy. The other sites were considered back-up sites that were to be used if a problem arose with operations at the primary sites, or they were to be held in reserve for use with future signs not yet in possession. The primary sites were at milepost 0.40 northbound on U.S. Highway 101 (just past the Alexander Avenue onramp) on the section of road known as the “Waldo Grade” and at milepost 5.05 southbound midway between the Blithedale and Seminary Drive exits.

The OLD: Manual Dynamic Message Sign for Parking at Stinson Beach (fixed message unchangeable)

The NEW: Electric Changeable Message Sign (flashing message – changeable)

26

Due to delays on several issues, the initial target deployment date of Memorial Day weekend passed without the PCMS units being in place on the roadside of US 101, but enough of the delays were resolved for deployment in late June. The outstanding problem continued to be the software, so GGNRA staff decided to operate the PCMS units manually until the software problems could be fixed. Caltrans staff was contacted at the Manzanita Maintenance Yard, and per the MOU, a request was made by GGNRA for Caltrans to move the signs into place by Friday, July 1. Once in place cable chains were attached to the wheels on the trailer units as a theft deterrent, and orange cones were placed near the units to enhance their visibility to passing cars.

Electric PCMS on US 101 NB During the summer period between July 2 and September 18, the PCMS units were activated on 39 different days. On every weekend day between July 2 and September 18 (21 days) the signs were ‘on’ for part of the day. They were also ‘on’ for 16 weekdays between late July –

mid-August, and were ‘on’ for two holidays (Independence Day and Labor Day), both of which occurred on a Monday in 2005.

Muir Woods Annex Lot

T DEL

Shoulder parking Frank Valley Rd.

The most common message was Message #5, ‘MUIR WOODS’ (flash 1), ‘PARKING FULL’ (flash 2) which appeared on the signs on 38 days. Message #4 , ‘STINSON BEACH’ (flash 1), ‘PARKING FULL’ (flash 2) was used on 3 days, and Message #9, ‘MUIR WDS & STINSON’ (flash 1), ‘PARKING FULL’ (flash 2) was also used on 3 days. Message #8, ‘HIWAY 1 EXPEC

AYS’ (flash 1) was used on 2 days.

Due to the shortage of formal parking at Muir Woods during the peak season, it quickly became obvious that Message #5 would be used much more than any other message, and that the PCMS units would be activated every day between 10:30AM – 11:30AM, and they would remain ‘on’

27

until 4:00PM – 5:00PM. Weekdays they were turned off a little earlier than on weekends, but as a general rule, the PCMS units were on five-six hours per day. If the remote operations software had not been a problem, the PCMS signs could have displayed Message #5 every weekday between late July and mid-

eptember.

ation to CC staff r roving GGNRA staff.

a problem throughout the ummer.

of standards in the perations Plan.

IM

itation could only be artially answered.

S It also quickly became obvious that although the ‘eyes and ears’ of the network were supposed to be a wide cross-section of local law enforcement and emergency services staff, the majority of traffic and parking information was collected from a few key NPS staff located at Muir Woods and Stinson Beach, and by roving GGNRA staff involved with the transportation pilot projects. At Muir Woods the greatest source of information came from a seasonal traffic ranger that patrolled both parking lots, while at Stinson Beach the best information source were NPS lifeguards that were able to observe traffic conditions from their high vantage point in the main lifeguard tower and then relay the informo Prior to field deployment of the PCMS units GGNRA staff also took the necessary steps to establish cellular phone service with Verizon Wireless (GGNRA cellular service provider), and ensure that operations software produced by the Ver-Mac company worked correctly. 5 The software provided by Ver-Mac to WTI was a continuous problem. The first version was unstable and

crashed frequently, and while the replacement software was better, it remained

5 The wireless service that allowed for remote operation was only needed for a few moments each time to “turn on”, “turn off”, or to change the message on the PCMS units.

s Remote PCMS unit operations were gradually phased in by late July as the software quirks and bugs were mostly worked out. By early August, remote operation by CC staff on weekends was standard, but an effort by CC staff to operate the PCMS units remotely on weekdays had to be stopped, because the trained GGNRA roving field staff available to address problems on weekends were not available on weekdays. Without the trained staff to provide assistance or manual operation seven days a week meant that message problems or errors that happened on weekdays could not be corrected for an unacceptable amount of time in violation O

PACTS ON MUIR WOODSVISITATION & SHUTTLE

The deployment of the PCMS units as a pilot project was expected to result in two key outcomes: reductions or changes in visitation patterns, and improvement of the visitor experience. Unfortunately, due to a lack of available data, the primary question of the impact of the PCMS units on reducing park visp The single largest unknown impact due to the presence of the PCMS units was the number of park visitors that decided to change their travel plans and not continue to the congested park areas after seeing a message on the PCMS units. Unfortunately, data could not be collected

28

from members of this group as they avoided survey work conducted at Muir Woods, avoided traffic counters placed on the roadways, did not come to the park at a later time, and did not use the Muir Woods shuttle. They simply did not come

Muir Woods at all.

ts due to eployment of the PCMS units.

ssful and overload the shuttle service.

d to this ifference are the PCMS units.

bove shows that this figure may e low.

tool at enhanced shuttle ridership levels.

to The visitors that either stayed true to their original travel plans or modified their travel plans, but still visited Muir Woods and other park areas provided data by interacting with the pilot transportation projects in at least one way, and using this data allows analysis of impacd The most visible outcome of the PCMS pilot project was the impact the PCMS units had on increasing ridership on the Muir Woods Shuttle. The difference between shuttle use levels with and without the PCMS units being active was dramatic and a pleasant surprise. The likelihood of this chain reaction had been discussed during planning, but once it began the collective staff of the three agencies involved became concerned that the chain reaction would be too succe- Prior to the deployment of the PCMS units during the first month of shuttle operation, ridership averaged 133 passengers per day, or 4 passengers per revenue hour. For the remainder of the shuttle season, which coincided with active use of the PCMS units, ridership averaged 398 passenger per day, or 13 passengers per revenue hour: an increase of 300%. A review of data when both the shuttle and the PCMS units were active shows that shuttle trips prior to the PCMS units being

activated around 11:30AM averaged less than 10 passengers per trip, but once the signs were displaying a message, which overwhelmingly was Message #5, “MUIR WOODS PARKING FULL”, ridership jumped to average over 20 passengers per trip until 2:00PM, with many trips on the busiest days being full to overflow conditions (27+ passengers). A comparison to vehicle traffic data shows the curve to the peak levels starting much earlier at about 10:00A.M. and then tailing off at about the same time as shuttle ridership after 2:00P.M. The only visible factor that can be attributed The Marin County survey conducted by Nelson Nygaard Consultants found that the PCMS units were the second most popular information source with 22% of visitors stating that the signs impacted their visit to Muir Woods, but the data detailed ab In response to the impact of the PCMS units, GGNRA roving staff monitored shuttle loads every weekend throughout July and into August and deactivated Message #5 on the PCMS units on multiple occasions to lessen the crunch on shuttle capacity during the key time period of 12:30PM – 2:00PM. By mid-August Marin County agreed to provide funding which allowed Golden Gate Transit to add service to lessen the overload problems. The conclusion is that all evidence shows that The PCMS units were a powerful th

29

STINSON BEACH ISSUES Summer 2005 was a very cool summer near the coast with less than five warm fog-free weekend days. The PCMS units were only required to display messages on full parking conditions at Stinson Beach on three different dates: July 23, July 24, and September 4 (Labor Day Sunday). During these days both Message #4 and Message #9 were used.

South 005

(North and Central Lots not shown)

age #9 was used on two ther occasions.

Lot - Stinson Beach – July 24, 2(approximately 550 cars in lot)

Message #9 was developed by GGNRA staff as a response to the few days when both Muir Woods and Stinson Beach parking lots were full. It required a small contraction (‘WDS’ in place of ‘WOODS’) which was discouraged by Caltrans, but no complaints were received following the first use on July 23. For the remainder of the summer messo

A serious challenge concerning Stinson Beach was the approved PCMS Operations Plan allowed for messages to be displayed only if a condition was actually occurring (e.g. the parking lots are full). Since Stinson Beach is located far west of the PCMS unit locations on US 101, GGNRA staff realized the requirement to wait for full parking lots prior to the activation of a message on the PCMS units would result in many dozen vehicles being in limbo -- en route to the park, but without a parking space to use upon arrival in Stinson Beach. A pilot project goal was to attempt to estimate the number caught in limbo by observing traffic activity on days when Stinson Beach parking was full, and then seek to modify the operations plan by allowing the PCMS unit to be activate early enough to maximize occupancy but avoid overflow conditions. However, the consistent poor weather prevented any real test from taking place. The irony to this issue occurred on July 23-24, the first hot weekend day of the summer, On Saturday July 23 due to warm weather GGNRA field staff knew beach parking would fill up before early afternoon. Rangers were busy and radio traffic was active, which led to a mix-up in radio communication as a premature request to turn the signs on was acted on by the roving GGNRA transportation staff. Rangers at the park and GGNRA transportation staff caught the mistake within fifteen minutes, but decided to leave Message #4 ‘STINSON BEACH – PARKING FULL’ on the PCMS units to see if visitation levels were impacted.

30

The following day, July 24, had almost identical weather conditions, but this time the PCMS units were not activated until the parking lots were completely full. A comparison of the two days showed congestion at the park and in town on Sunday was noticeably worse. On Saturday, congestion did not deteriorate to the point where NPS Rangers had to actively close the park entrance, but on Sunday it was closed and Rangers monitored vehicles entering and exiting for a couple hours until later in the afternoon when adequate spaces opened to meet demand. Traffic volumes were very similar on access roads during both days, so it appears possible that an anticipatory activation of the PCMS units did reduce congestion at Stinson Beach. ================================

ITS PROJECT #2: “511” INTERNET & PHONE

INFORMATION

BACKGROUND The ‘511.org’ ,’Your Bay Area Travel Guide’ system, known informally as ‘511’ is sponsored by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). It allows public access via internet or telephone to real-time and stored databases of transportation information. The purpose of providing the real-time information is to allow individuals to confirm or adjust travel plans utilizing the most current information available, which allows for optimum utilization of existing transportation infrastructure in the Bay Area region.

511 APPLICATION

At the start of summer 2005 visitors to GGNRA were able to access Muir Woods Shuttle schedules and stop information via ‘511’ either at the MTC sponsored 511 website, or at the Golden Gate Transit website. General shuttle information was also available on the NPS managed Muir Woods and GGNRA websites. A sizable number of park visitors surveyed by Nelson Nygaard (16%) stated they had obtained information on the shuttle via the internet, although the survey did not ask visitors to name the website they had used. Each of the host agencies developed and updated information independent of one another, excepting the MTC sponsored 511 site which used

Image of ‘”live” Bay Area map showing traffic conditions and problem areas

31

schedule information provided by Golden Gate Transit. Beginning in mid-July, visitors were also able to access real-time roadway information, parking information and traffic conditions for Muir Woods and Stinson Beach via the internet on the MTC ‘511’ website, and via ‘511’ telephone. This was the result of a collaborative effort to develop recorded phone messages between GGNRA staff and MTC staff working on the 511 system. (See appendix C). MTC had planned to implement an entirely computerized voice system and not use recorded voices, but this was delayed until 2006 due to technical problems. The recorded message system for the park areas was activated and deactivated as follows. GGNRA staff informed MTC staff at the Oakland Traffic Management Center (TMC) when parking lots were full or roadway congestion was occurring at Muir Woods or Stinson Beach, and the TMC staff activated the applicable phone message, and updated the internet map at the MTC internet site. Once problem conditions abated, GGNRA staff called the TMC to inform them the problem was over, and the TMC staff deactivated the phone message and updated the internet map once more. Although this part of the ITS program had been assigned to CC staff in the PCMS Operations Plan, on almost all occasions contact between MTC and GGNRA was performed by GGNRA roving transportation staff. The 511 information requests from the public were recorded and categorized into several information groups: bridges, cities,

highways, fine points, and hot spots. Stinson Beach was listed as a city and Muir Woods was to be listed as a hot spot. The new information was not advertised, which could explain why only a total of 37 requests were made for traffic conditions at Stinson Beach between mid-July and Labor Day. Stinson Beach was selected by 1%-2% of all calls to Marin County by the general public. A total of 1,804 calls were made that selected Highway 1 and another 644 that either designated Highway 1 north or Highway 1 south. The selection of these three roadway categories together accounted for about 5.5% of all roads selected by visitors via 511 across the entire Bay Area. Unfortunately, the volume of phone calls to request Muir Woods traffic conditions is unknown, because MTC was unable to modify software used to track telephone requests to add Muir Woods in as a hot spot site. Highway 1 was listed as a roadway, but the software did not designate road segments, so the Highway 1 figures included roadway segments in counties other than West Marin. The use of available internet sites, including the NPS websites, Golden Gate Transit website and ‘511.org’, to collect information prior to a visit to GGNRA or Muir Woods is promising, although better efforts need to be put into place to record activity so the true level of impact can be known. While use levels of 511 phone information were relatively low as compared to public awareness and use of information contained in the PCMS units, the 511 phone information ITS element remains a powerful tool that requires additional time to operate and develop as

32

a pilot project before it can be fully evaluated. Finally, the Stinson Beach weather phone with a recorded phone message for weather, tide information and surf conditions was reactivated in 2005 after an absence of several seasons.

Stinson Beach Main Lifeguard Tower GGNRA lifeguards updated conditions daily in mid-morning, or as conditions changed during the day. The recorded message phone number was one piece of information included in the MTC ‘511’ message that allowed visitors to get more detailed information regarding a visit to Stinson Beach if they desired. ================================

ITS PROJECT #3: TRAFFIC COUNTERS

BACKGROUND

In an effort to quantify the impacts of the multiple pilot transportation projects that were implemented in Marin during the summer 2005 season, GGNRA and WTI staff worked together to deploy traffic counters on key road segments and at key entrances to parking areas within the general parklands area. Eight traffic counters configured to use road tubes or loop detectors were acquired by GGNRA staff from WTI in Montana, and were

combined with four traffic counters provided by the NPS Statistics Office in Denver, CO that were configured to use

op detectors only6.

th no advanced terval recording ability7

TRAFFIC C OYMENT

s due to the pilot transportation rojects.

lo The most important feature contained on each counter was they were programmable to collect and record interval data to show traffic activity on roadways and visitor activity at entrances to park areas for specific time segments. By comparison, the standard NPS traffic counters in use at GGNRA collect data in a continuous stream wiin

OUNTER DEPLSUMMER 2005

Nine counters were deployed in the project implementation area during the summer peak season in 2005. The deployment plan attempted to repeat vehicle counts at the most important locations that were counted during the summer peak season in 2004 as part of the CTMP study program. The 2004 data represents baseline data that was collected without any influence from operational pilot transportation projects, while the 2005 data represents the first year of a series of dynamic data sets that are expected over the next few years to show some level of impact on overall traffic levelp Although the initial goal had been to deploy counters into the field prior to Memorial Day, due to delays in the arrival of the counters from WTI and Denver, the

6 Three counters were Jamar Trax 1 units, and five counters were Diamond Centurion units. The other four counters were Diamond Sprite units. 7 The standard GGNRA counters are Diamond “41” units.

33

counters were deployed during July. Three interval counters were swapped with standard GGNRA counters at parking lot entrances near Tennessee Valley, Muir Beach and Stinson Beach, and utilized pre-exiting loop detection equipment embedded in the pavement. Six interval counters that utilized rubber tube detection equipment were deployed on key roadway segments throughout the parklands area between Tam Valley and Stinson Beach. The remaining counters were kept as spares in reserve or used elsewhere in the park. The counters

were removed in late September. The counters utilizing loop detection equipment are still in place and are expected to continue interval data collection throughout the shoulder and off-seasons. All counters collected data on 15 minute intervals (30 minute intervals were used for 2004 data collection) – 24 hours a day until they were removed or malfunctioned. A list of the locations where the 2004 counts and 2005 counts were taken is shown below.

utilizing rubber tube detection equipment

004 Data Collection Locations 005 Data Collection Locations 2 2 #1 Shoreline Hwy. (500 feet east of Panoramic Hwy.) near 3 Corners

#1 Shoreline Hwy. (500 feet east of Panoramic Hwy.) near 3 Corners

#2 Shoreline Hwy. (500 feet west of Panoramic Hwy.) near 3 Corners

#2 Shoreline Hwy. (500 feet west of Panoramic Hwy.) near Corners** 3

#3 Shoreline Hwy. (100 feet north of Panoramic Hwy.) in Stinson Beach

#4 Shoreline Hwy. (near NPS MaBeach

int. Facility) north of Stinson Maint. Facility) north of #4 Shoreline Hwy. (near NPSStinson Beach

#5 Tennessee Valley Road (300 feet west of Oakwood Valley)

#5 Tennessee Valley Road (300 feet west of Oakwood Valley)

#6 Panoramic Hwy. (500 feet north of Shoreline Hwy. nearCorners)

3 ic Hwy. (500 feet north of Shoreline Hwy. near Corners)

#6 Panoram3

#7 Panoramic Hwy. (100 feet east of Bootjack Picnic Area) #8 Panoramic Hwy. (500 feet west of Pantoll Ranger Station entrance)

#9 Muir Woods Road (1000 feet east of Muir Woods – b/t Muir Woods and 4 Corners)

#9 Muir Woods Road (1000 feet east of Muir Woods – b/t Muir Woods and 4 Corners)

#10 Muir Woods Road (1000 feet north of Shoreline Hwy. – aka Frank Valley Road - b/t Muir Woods and Muir Beach)

#10 Muir Woods Road (1000 feet north of Shoreline Hwy. – ka Frank Valley Road - b/t Muir Woods and Muir Beach) a

#11 Pantoll Road (500 feet north of Pan- oramic Hwy. at PaRanger Station)

ntoll

#12 Sequoia Valley Road (100 feet east of 4 Corners) #12 Sequoia Valley Road (500 feet east of 4 Corners) #13 Pacific Way (300 feet east of the Muir Beach parking lot entrance)

#13 Pacific Way (at the entrance to Muir Beach parking lot)

#14 Stinson Beach entrance road (100 feet west of Shoreline Hwy.)

#14 Stinson Beach entrance road (at the old entrance station kiosk)

NOTES: The 2004 counts utilized 14 traffic counters, while the 2005 counts only utilized 10 counters, because GGNRA staff did not have access to 14 counters, and some of the count sites used in 2004 were felt not to warrant additional counts in 2005 and beyond.

nter #2 in the 2004 count prior to passing counter #1.

** Counts were not actually recorded at this site but a count total was achieved by subtracting counter #6 data from counter #1 data with the difference being the total for the counter #2 location. This action is acceptable as all westbound traffic that passed counter #1 proceeded past either counter #6 or the location of counter #2 in the 2004 count, and all traffic heading east either passed counter #6 or the location of cou

34

Legend Pilot Project Study Area Traffic Counter Locations (9)

(A summary of the data collected during both the 2004 and 2005 summer peak seasons is included as Appendices D and E). The actual operation and maintenance of the counters was more challenging than initially envisioned by GGNRA staff, and a few highlights are included here for anyone that is considering a data collection effort similar to this one. Deployment of counters required the selection of a straight and preferably flat piece of roadway with smooth pavement and an anchor on one side of the road (tree, road sign post, guard rail post, power pole, etc.) to secure the counter in an effort to prevent theft. The entire

system was checked once every 7-10 days to ensure everything was in place and working. Roadway pneumatic tubes attached to a counter only came loose due to traffic once, but unknown parties disconnected tubes twice, and cut a tube once during the summer. Two counters would not hold a battery charge at various times during the summer and stopped collecting data between periodic system checks. For these reasons, gaps exist in the 2005 data. In reviewing the 2004 data that was collected by traffic consultants hired by Marin County, data gaps or data anomalies also appear, so very close and

35

consistent management of the counters is critical. These counters for a variety of reasons record counts that are between 95%-99% accurate. In addition to data loss due to dead batteries and loose pneumatic tubes, data errors occur when vehicles cross the sensors at an odd angle, or two vehicles cross in opposite lanes exactly simultaneously, or immediately one behind the other, and cause the counter to record an extra vehicle or to miss a vehicle. Multi-axle vehicles (large trucks) also can skew data. The specific counters used for summer 2005 data collection at GGNRA had unique characteristics. The Jamar Trax I counters were mid-1990s vintage and did not allow a download of collected data directly to the newest NPS laptops due to a transfer cable incompatibility that defied all attempts to repair. These units had to be removed from the field and taken to the office and connected to a desktop computer with a compatible cable port to retrieve data. While they were in the office, a reserve counter was placed in the field. Otherwise, the Trax I units performed well. Data from the Diamond Centurion and Sprite units was directly downloaded to a laptop computer, but software glitches that caused freeze-ups in the operating system during data retrieval were a continuing problem. It was never determined if the software problems were due to data software designed by Diamond Products or due to problem software built in to the IBM Think Pad laptop computer, or due to transfer cable problems. As a safety measure to limit this problem, smaller chunks of data

were downloaded (few files at a time rather than a dozen or more). ANALYSIS OF TRAFFIC COUNTER

DATA Although the pilot project goal was to collect a large continuous stream of traffic volume data for the entire 2005 peak season, due to the delayed field deployment, counter malfunctions, and the limited ‘weekends only’ schedule of the Muir Woods Shuttle, the actual work resulted in data relevant to a direct 2004 to 2005 comparison of less than a dozen days. All of the elements finally came together in August and early September, and provided a snapshot of the traffic impacts due to the pilot projects. The data can be analyzed from multiple perspectives, but the most basic analysis compares the daily traffic levels entering the larger park area to park visitation figures (visitor entrances data from Muir Woods, or traffic counters at the other park sites). The CTMP traffic study work in 2000-2002 concluded that on an average peak season day (weekend or weekday) approximately 50% of all traffic entering the larger park area traveled via SR1 from US 101, 25% used Sequoia Valley Road from Mill Valley, and 25% entered via SR1 from north of Stinson Beach. A very small number (1%-2% - not accounted for here) also entered via Ridgecrest Blvd. from Mt. Tamalpais which connects to Bolinas Fairfax Road at the lower end of Olema Valley several miles north of Stinson Beach. No obvious trends of either increased or reduced traffic were visible when a comparison of relevant 2004 and 2005 traffic volume

36

data entering the project area from all entrances was performed. A more narrow analysis of a comparison of the visitation data from Muir Woods and specific SR 1 from US 101 traffic data shows that the pilot transportation projects appear to have had a positive impact on traffic resulting in a reduction of vehicles traveling to this site. On the 10 days when all ITS elements and the shuttle were active, actual park visitation increased on 8 days and decreased on 2 days. However, on those same days traffic volumes on SR1 from US 101 (the primary access route to the park) decreased 6 days, were the same for 2 days, and increased on 2 days. On most days (including both days when traffic decreased and increased) the percentage difference was small enough to be within the margin of error for the counters, but the trend favoring a traffic decrease on days when overall visitation increased is worth noting. 8 A comparison of traffic data from the other sites: Tennessee Valley, Muir Beach and Stinson Beach was inconclusive. Possible trends of the type found at Muir Woods cannot be found that are either positive or negative. Due to a traffic counter problem at Stinson Beach, a direct comparison is only possible on 5 days for all three sites, and on those days the analysis for the combined sites and overall traffic volume is split with 2 days of decreased traffic and 3 days of increased traffic. Again, the differences are small

enough to be within the margin of error for the counters. (See Appendix F and G for more detailed information).

8 On the same 10 days, traffic volumes into the larger park area on SR1 from US 101, on SR 1 from north of Stinson Beach, and on Sequoia Valley Road decreased on 6 days, increased on 3 days, and were inconclusive on 1 day.

Another analysis that can be done is to search for noticeable changes at peak hour times or during peak periods on specific days between the 2004 and 2005 data when all of the ITS elements and the shuttle were in operation. The assumption for the summer 2005 data set is that traffic volume may decrease at a specific time following the activation of the PCMS units and corresponding increase in shuttle use. A review of traffic counter #1 data from located on the primary access route to Muir Woods (SR1 from US 101: actual counter located on SR1 just east of Three Corners) on the 10 days when all ITS elements and the shuttle were active did not show a noticeable pattern of changes (decrease or increase) in traffic volume between the 2004 and 2005 peak seasons at the key times when the ITS elements were in operation and the shuttle was in service. The same finding of no change was seen when the data from the above counter was combined with counter data from the two major secondary access routes (Sequoia Valley Road (counter #12) and SR1 north of Stinson Beach (counter #4)). Therefore, while the PCMS units worked well to attract visitors to the shuttle, a review of the traffic counter data as a stand alone set of information showed the PCMS units had at most a minor impact on traffic reduction on the SR1 / Panoramic Highway corridor during the peak season. This analysis confirms that

37

while the Muir Woods Shuttle was a success, it too had at most a minor impact on traffic reduction on the SR1 / Panoramic Highway corridor. The deployment of the traffic counters provided a small amount of data to support the positive impacts of the ITS program and the shuttle on traffic conditions in the park areas, but it really showed that larger efforts are needed to

address the transportation issues faced in this area. Building upon that fact, the real benefit of the time and effort required to deploy traffic counters during the past two peak seasons will likely appear following expansion of the pilot projects in 2006 and in subsequent years when the earlier data will provide a baseline level of data that can be measured against the impacts due to the implementation of future projects.

====================================================================== TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT

STAFF BACKGROUND AND SUMMER 2005

PROGRAM During the 2005 peak season GGNRA, Marin County, and Golden Gate Transit all performed personnel actions to provide additional staff to assist in the management of the pilot transportation

projects, or to directly manage traffic at sensitive locations at Muir Woods and Stinson Beach. These actions ensured that existing staff were available to perform other required duties. GGNRA adjusted the work schedules of key planning staff to allow direct

management of pilot transportation projects on weekends, added one seasonal Ranger position to manage traffic at Muir Woods during the peak of the summer, and offered limited amounts of overtime work (contingent on funding) to Rangers on several busy weekends to perform traffic management at Muir Woods and Stinson Beach. Marin County added an extra Deputy Sheriff Parking Control Officer at Stinson Beach on most busy weekends and holidays. Golden Gate Transit contributed extra efforts from their Bus Transit Division Field Operations Supervisors throughout the summer, including working overtime, to do their best to ensure that the shuttle service operated as smoothly as possible. Golden Gate Transit drivers agreed to work overtime on several occasions with minimal notice to ensure successful shuttle service. Work tasks completed by this extra, but essential staff allowed for a high level of general oversight and monitoring of the pilot transportation projects throughout the summer. More specific tasks included; traffic management at Muir Woods parking lots on a daily basis, and at

38

Stinson Beach on weekends, visitor contact and information by the GGNRA staff at the Manzanita park and ride and Marin City Transit Center during the morning and early afternoon, and at Muir Woods in the late afternoon, and cooperation between Golden Gate Transit staff and GGNRA staff to request or cancel extra shuttle service when needed based on conditions in the field.

Parking Full Sign at Entrance to Main Lot

STAFF COSTS The cost to GGNRA to provide the extra staff can be separated into two categories: direct costs and absorbed costs. Hiring of additional staff or overtime is a direct cost.9 The direct cost to hire a traffic management ranger at Muir Woods was approximately $6,000 for a 60-day period (late June to late August). The overtime costs to fill this position for a few weeks before and after the 60-day period cost about $2,500-$3,500. 9 All staff costs assume a combination of salary and Benefits based on an average utilized by the NPS 10 Data provided by Marin County Public Works

The absorbed costs consisted of the shift in schedule by two staff (Transportation Planner and Park Transportation Scholar Intern) to a work schedule that included being on duty during weekends, and spending weekends almost completely in the field directly managing or monitoring the pilot transportation projects.

The focus on the pilot transportation projects meant less time was spent on non-pilot project work. Assuming both positions spent 16 hours per week for a period of 15 weeks, plus holidays, on field related duties, the absorbed costs were about $25,000. The park transportation scholar was funded by a National Park Foundation / Ford Foundation grant and not direct NPS funds. The cost to Marin County to provide the extra traffic control officer coverage by the Sheriff’s Department at Stinson Beach was about $3,500 for the peak season.10 Extra costs to Golden Gate Transit due to the provision of extra shuttle service are included in the shuttle operations costs and are not counted here to avoid being counted twice. The extra cost, if any, to Golden Gate Transit staff would be based on overtime accrued by the Bus Transit Operations Supervisor, and it would also be included in shuttle operation costs.

======================================================================

39

CONCEPTUAL PLANNING FOR 2006 AND BEYOND

OVERVIEW

The first season of pilot transportation projects for parklands in west Marin concluded shortly after Labor Day 2005. Following the re-direction of the CTMP, the former partnership agencies agreed to work together to craft sustainable solutions that are supported by the local community. All of the participant agencies are planning to repeat or expand their pilot transportation projects in 2006 and beyond. Improving on results garnered in is a challenge for the participant agencies.

MUIR WOODS SHUTTLE - SERVICE CHANGES

Marin County has the funding in place to operate the Muir Woods Shuttle for the 2006 peak season, and 2007 peak seasons. The schedule for the 2006 season has been finalized and Golden Gate Transit has been selected by Marin County to be the service provider. The success of the shuttle in 2005 showed the public is interested and willing to use public transit service to Muir Woods. The ultimate level of interest is still to be determined, but the first season was a promising start.

SERVICE EXPANSION AND NEW STOPS

A significant challenge is expanding shuttle service. Higher service levels are essential if shuttle ridership is to continue to grow and prosper and cars are to be removed from congested roadways. Nelson Nygaard Consultants proposed a 33% increase in service by bumping up

from a 30 minute schedule to a 20 minute schedule for the 2006 season. Their proposal would have raised the number of trips in each direction from 15-18 per day to 24 per day, and raised the number of available seats from 54 per hour to 81 per hour, assuming 30 foot buses (27 seat capacity) continue to be used. A larger increase to a 15 minute schedule would raise the number of trips in each direction to 36 per day, and raise the number of available seats to 108 per hour.

ty settled on adding service in

nsuring that an adequate number of

Parking & Shuttle Capacity

0500

10001500200025003000350040004500

1 2 3 4 5

Parking & Shuttle Service Levels

Daily

Vis

itatio

n Le

vels

Green Bar = heavy visitation day (4,000 visitors) Yellow Bar = Estimated Visitor Capacity Options (Parking + Various Shuttle Levels) Red Shaded Area = parking lot capacity (estimated at 2,500 visitors on an avg. day) 1 = Parking + no shuttle 2 = Parking + 30 minute shuttle (Using 30 foot buses requires 7.5 – 15 minute 3 = Parking + 20 minute shuttle service to accommodate visitor levels during 4 = Parking + 15 minute shuttle peak times on summer weekends / holidays) 5 = Parking + 7.5 minute shuttle Service = 6 hours per day @ 27 passengers per trip - out and back)

.Marin Counthe late afternoon and into the evening to maintain a 30-minute schedule all day up to 7:00PM. This change is an attempt to ensure that overcrowded buses departing from Muir Woods to return to Manzanita and Marin City are not a problem as in 2005. Ebuses are available is another challenge. During the 2005 season Golden Gate Transit required 3 buses to maintain a 30 minute schedule, plus 1 bus as a backup, or 4 buses total. Although Marin County chose not to proceed with a service expansion to a 20 minute schedule, such

40

a schedule would require adding a 4th bus to the basic schedule, plus 1 bus as a backup, or 5 buses total. Expansion to a 15 minute schedule would require adding 2 buses to the basic schedule, plus 1 bus as a backup, or 6 buses total. 11

Nelson Nygaard Consultant also proposed

he proposed route extension to Sausalito

he estimated number of required buses

urrently, an inadequate number of 30-

he capital cost to obtain a new 30-foot

he limited capacity of the 30 foot buses

olden Gate Transit has discussed a road

to extend the shuttle from Marin City eastward to downtown Sausalito where the shuttles can meet Golden Gate Transit Ferry Service from San Francisco, but Marin County decided not to lengthen the route for 2006, relying instead on ferry passengers reaching the shuttle by using Golden Gate Transit Routes 10 and 22 between the ferry and the shuttle. Twould add 10-12 minutes of operations time (run time) in each direction to the existing Muir Woods Shuttle schedule resulting in a 36 minute one-way trip inbound and a 34 minute one-way trip outbound, or a 70 minute round trip. To extend service to Sausalito and merely maintain the 2005 schedule would increase the number of buses required from a total of 4 buses to at least 5 buses. A minimum of 6 buses would be required to expand to a 20 minute schedule, and a minimum of 7 buses would be required to expand to a 15 minute schedule. Tin all three scenarios assume one bus is a spare. To build in a level of security to ensure on-time performance due to the often problematic traffic conditions present in Sausalito would require adding 1 bus to each schedule for a recommended total of 6 buses to operate a 30 minute schedule,

7 buses to operate a 20 minute schedule, and 8 buses to operate a 15 minute schedule. Securing space for buses to ‘layover’ while operators take required breaks in the congested downtown area of Sausalito is a separate issue that needs to be addressed.

11 Figures based on schedule drafted by NPS staff.

Cfoot buses are present in the Golden Gate Transit fleet to operate the shuttle on a 20-minute service schedule, and continue to provide service on other routes that require the smaller buses in their district. Additional buses can be obtained, but the required procurement time is unknown, and the amount and condition of available buses can vary widely. T‘transit type’ bus is approximately $250,000. Buses classified as ‘Activity’ buses with similar passenger capacities that are built on truck or van chassis and not on a shortened transit bus chassis cost less, but are not as rugged and durable. Costs for used 30-foot buses vary widely depending upon bus type, powertrain type and overall condition. The lease market for 30-foot transit type buses is small because the number produced is much lower than the number of standard 40-foot transit type buses. Tused during the 2005 season remains another challenge to be addressed in the future. Gtest of a 35 foot bus with a seated capacity of 35 passengers on the access roads between Manzanita and Muir

41

Woods to see if is feasible to operate the larger vehicle, but if a test were found to be successful, Golden Gate Transit would need to secure the use of several 35-foot buses as they currently do not own any vehicles of this size. The other service expansion requested by

ON – WEEKDAY

Any raffic

MUIR WOODS SHUTTLE - FARE

As possibl ns were

reliminary analysis shows that the fare is

he Muir Woods Shuttle will have a

residents and recommended by Nelson Nygaard Consultants was the addition of a stop at Muir Beach that would be served in both directions. The construction of new Muir Beach bus stops represents a significant challenge that requires Marin County, Caltrans and GGNRA work together to address many issues (operations, environmental, safety, etc.) at the prospective stop locations tentatively identified for the intersection of SR1 and Pacific Way adjacent to the Pelican Inn. It is projected that the addition of these stops will have a minimal impact on run time for the shuttle. Because of the complex construction issues at Muir Beach, Marin County decided not to implement a shuttle stop in the community or Muir Beach for the 2006 season. SERVICE EXPANSI

AND WEEKEND SERVICE long-term plan to reduce t

congestion and lessen or eliminate overflow parking at Muir Woods will require weekday shuttle service. It is an issue that will not be addressed in 2006, but one that will require future action. While weekday visitation generally is lower than weekend visitation, the two parking lots at Muir Woods overflowed on every weekday during the peak season in summer 2005. Shuttle service on weekdays will cost approximately 2-3 times as much as weekend shuttle service

at similar service levels, because of higher transit costs present on weekdays when maximum service is deployed, and because there are more weekdays (5) than weekend days (2) per week.

COLLECTION e service optio

developed for 2006, Marin County decided to implement a fare ($2 adults, $1 seniors and ages 6-18) for passengers on the Muir Woods Shuttle. The charging of a shuttle fare will be reviewed following the 2006 season Pnot expected to raise significant amounts of revenue, but it does represent a test of visitor willingness to try the shuttle as an alternative to driving a car and attempting to secure a scarce parking space. The operations costs for the Muir Woods Shuttle were approximately $115,000 for the 2005 peak season. During the season the shuttle carried 10,219 passengers. If each of these passengers had paid $2, the total farebox recovery would have been $20,438, or 18% of operations costs. When discounts are made for seniors, disabled, and youth, as is required in many instances by Federal law, and as is the industry standard practice; the farebox recovery would very likely drop below 10%, and possibly below 5%. Tproblem achieving a high farebox recovery for several reasons. It is not analogous to regular transit service. The first difference is it serves a recreation focused group of prospective passengers which is different from serving commuters

42

or a transit dependent population. Although limited parking at Muir Woods is a factor that can be used to generate ridership, existing parking capacity is high enough that this factor alone cannot transform the prospective ridership group from a “choice” group that can choose to use or not to use transit, to a “necessity” or “compulsory” group that must use transit. The second difference is it is an

he third difference is that the service

The need to acilities and

he Muir Woods Shuttle served four stops

experimental pilot project that has not yet built up a dedicated patronage, and because the prospective passenger group does not repeatedly visit the park, the accumulation of a dedicated patronage will require a long time to develop. A comparison can be made to the Yosemite Valley Shuttle, which was immediately popular upon introduction over 30 years ago, but which took a several years to become an integral part of the valley experience for a majority of visitors. Troute is very long, and the equipment carrying capacity is small due to the winding roadways which limit vehicle size. The result of these factors is the average cost per revenue hour is high and very difficult to lower. A danger with fare collection is that could significantly dampen visitor interest in the shuttle.

MUIR WOODS SHUTTLE - VISITOR FACILITIES improve the f

amenities for shuttle users in 2006 and beyond is a major challenge facing Marin County and GGNRA. There are many opportunities that could be utilized to implement small or large scale changes, or something in-between.

Passengers boarding shuttle – no shelter or bench at the Pohono shuttle stop

Tduring the 2005 season: Marin City, Pohono, Manzanita, and Muir Woods. (The Pohono stop is also located at Mazanita and can only be used in the westbound direction.) It operated with a bare minimum of visitor facilities. A recap of amenities follows. Several hundred parking spaces available for shuttle users on weekends were present at all three of the east Marin sites, although only a portion of available parking was specifically designated as shuttle parking near Pohono. Shelters with seats were present at Marin City and Manzanita, but not at Pohono or Muir Woods, although shade was available at Muir Woods near the bus stop area. Restrooms were located near the bus stop at Muir Woods, but not at the other stops. Restrooms were available at commercial businesses

Projected Shuttle Costs & Farebox Recovery

Shuttle Costs Not Paid By Farebox =

91%

Farebox Recovery if $1 per

passenger is charged =

9%

43

at Marin City. Food and refreshments were available relatively nearby at Marin City and at Muir Woods, but not at Pohono or Manzanita. Public telephone service was available nearby at Muir Woods, Marin City and Manzanita, but not at Pohono. Telephone service continues to be important at Muir Woods where cellular phone service is marginal at best. Printed information (signs and sandwich boards) were available at all four bus stops, but all four sites would have been better with more public information. Access to dedicated visitor contact staff

iority should be given to the effort

was only available at Muir Woods. Dedicated visitor contact staff was not planned to be available at any of the shuttle stops in east Marin, and was not implemented during the summer. However, GGNRA decided to include roving visitor contact with shuttle passengers as a duty to be performed by two GGNRA roving planning staff that were in the field on weekends managing and monitoring other pilot transportation projects. Generally the two roving GGNRA staff performed the duties of visitor use assistants. They interacted with visitors by providing information and directions at the Marin City, Pohono and Manzanita stops in the morning and early afternoon, and at the Muir Woods stop in the late afternoon and evening. Prrequired to provide shelters and or seating at all four of the stops, and at any possible new stops in Sausalito and Muir Beach. This should be relatively easy. Prefabricated shelters are available in either a new or used condition for

approximately $7,500 - $10,000 per unit. 12 The provision of restrooms should also be a priority. Portable restrooms are an option at the shuttle stops that do not have flush restrooms nearby. GGNRA has an existing contract with a firm that would charge approximately $1,500 per unit for the summer, which includes servicing the units.13

Shoreline Office Park Center – Manzanita The provision of food, refreshments, and visitor contact staff will be more challenging, but opportunities also exist in this area. Both the Marin City Shopping Center (Tallen & Kashen Holdings) and Shoreline Office Park (Equity Office Properties) have vacant ground floor space available for lease with a monthly rental price of $3.00-$4.00 a square foot in their respective complexes.14 Available spaces start at under 1,000 square feet and increase in size to several thousand square feet.

12 Information provided by Golden Gate Transit Planning Staff 13 Information provided by GGNRA Maintenance Division Staff 14 Information provided by www.equityproperties.com, www.TallenKashenHoldings.com, and the Marin Independent Journal

44

The provision of improved visitor contact staff at a GS-5 leve,l or equivalent level if provided by a party other than the NPS, would cost approximately $7,500-$10,000 per person for the duration of the 2006 summer peak season. In the long-term, the Marin City Shopping Center has additional opportunities unique to the site that would allow for implementation of an improved shuttle service stop in the interior of the shopping center. Outstanding issues that prevented an agreement between Marin County and the shopping center management remain to be worked out if this site is to play a more vital role as a transfer location for visitors parking their cars and transferring to the shuttle.

Gateway Shopping Center - Marin City Existing GGT Transit Center Possible future shuttle stop In theory, the layout of the complex can accommodate the relocation of the shuttle stop to the center of the shopping area, which would then allow shuttle parking to be concentrated to any part of the lot complex desired by the management, or

completely decentralized, since there would be no advantage for shuttle users to park in any particular area of the parking lot. The relocation of the shuttle stop would require altering existing planter box locations on an existing concrete island between parking stalls and the thru-traffic right-of-way so the island meets American with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. The main travel route that shuttles would use to serve the relocated stop was previously hardened to accept buses as it serves as part of the turnaround route for buses using the existing transit center located adjacent to the shopping center. Two vacant spaces of 1,200 and 4,500 square feet currently exist in the building located on the central island of the shopping center. The third space is occupied by a Starbucks Coffee outlet. Currently, given the large number of parking spaces at Marin City and Manzanita on public and private lands that can be used by shuttle passengers, a parking shortage for the 2006 season does not appear to be a problem on weekends, even with a sizable increase in shuttle service, and even if a formal agreement to allow shuttle users to park at the Marin City Shopping Center is not achieved. If shuttle operations were to commence on weekdays, as is likely to be required in the future, a parking shortage would be a problem. In general, addressing unresolved parking issues at both locations in the long term should be a most important priority for Marin County, GGNRA and Caltrans, since the entire

45

operations structure of any shuttle service and fixed infrastructure parking issues at Muir Woods are contingent upon a resolution of parking at these remote sites. _________________________________

INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION

SYSTEMS (ITS) - PILOT PROJECTS

TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT The implementation of ITS projects at GGNRA also presents challenges and opportunities. The pilot project deployment of PCMS units, activation of ‘511’ information on the internet and telephone, and deployment of traffic counters on roadways and at parking lot entrances were all successful in 2005. For 2006, plans are to repeat the 2005 ITS pilot projects, and to expand into new technology areas depending upon available funds. There are three possible ITS technology expansions under consideration by partnership agencies working on the pilot transportation projects. Marin County is working toward deployment of a PCMS unit to augment the static information signs that advertise Muir Woods Shuttle service to park visitors. The PCMS unit would be deployed on a northbound US 101 site identified, but not used in 2005 by GGNRA. This would allow the Marin County PCMS unit to coordinate with the nearby GGNRA PCMS unit so the result would create a multiple message real-time stream of visual information that is available to park visitors as they approach the junction of US 101 and CA State Route 1 from the Golden Gate Bridge.

Marin County does not plan to implement a partner PCMS unit for southbound traffic, so the southbound GGNRA PCMS unit will continue to operate by itself. Coordination requirements were discussed in spring 2005 by GGNRA, Marin County and Caltrans prior to GGNRA placement of PCMS units for the 2005 season, so the additional PCMS unit deployment by Marin County would bring the entire effort together as planned for 2006. The Nelson Nygaard survey data showed a high correlation between observing messages on the PCMS units and shuttle use levels, so the addition of PCMS units to help advertise the shuttle should result in a very positive outcome. Under consideration by GGNRA is the deployment of remote web-cameras that can provide visual information to park staff and to the public via the internet. The prime sites to receive cameras are Muir Woods and Stinson Beach. Cameras at these sites would be able to provide direct visual information concerning parking lot occupancy and weather conditions. The exact specifications of the the type of camera and the preferred performance characteristics are still under development, but range from an estimate of under $5,000 per site to over $50,000 per site. The conceptual goal is to have the cameras installed and active by Memorial Day, 2006. Depending upon funding and technology issues, if it was shown to be feasible to install more cameras, the most logical sites following Muir Woods and Stinson Beach would be Muir Beach and Tennessee Valley.

46

Mt. Mitchell – North Carolina Public interest to show weather conditions at beach sites via web-camera has been received and would allow for a more complete snapshot of conditions available to the public of a particular site, which would influence travel decisions. Since several privately owned internet sites located on private land showing beach conditions at Stinson Beach, Muir Beach and other GGNRA locations are available for public view on the Internet, the possibility exists for the park to offer links to these private sites rather than going through the effort and cost to install and maintain additional cameras. NPS policies, technical requirements and other infrastructure issues need to be researched to determine feasibility, legal and other issues.

Muir Beach webcamera – privately owned and maintained.

Also under consideration by GGNRA, but more likely to be deployed in 2007 or later is highway advisory radio (HAR). HAR has existed in many national parks for several years, including Point Reyes National Seashore just to the north of GGNRA where it is located at a frequency of 1610 AM. Point Reyes operates three separate transmitters of 10 Watts each within the park. In most parks the role played by HAR has been to provide interpretive information, although it has been useful in emergencies. At GGNRA it would most likely peform a dual role of traffic information and interpretive information. Caltrans owns and operates an extensive HAR network around the Bay Area that broadcasts when needed at a frequency of 840 AM.

Mobile Highway Advisory Radio Transmitter

The establishment of an HAR broadcast site costs about $20,000 per site at this time, and a preliminary analysis of the area between Tam Valley and Stinson Beach show that multiple sites (exact number TBD) would be required. A system utilizing portable transmitters on trailer mounted units is also possible. Beyond deployments of these two new types of ITS technology and / or

47

expansion of the existing ITS technologies, other technologies exist that if deployed by GGNRA or Marin County, could prove very beneficial to park and visitor management. As an example, it is possible to deploy traffic counters that can collect and send information remotely to a central computer to automatically activate PCMS units to display visitor information, or activate an HAR system to broadcast visitor information when certain traffic levels are recorded by the counters, and then to turn these information sources off again when the traffic condition has abated. The adoption of this type of a system would require the deployment of sizable ITS infrastructure consisting of traffic counters, PCMS units, HAR transmitters, video cameras capable of broadcasting via the internet, etc., and the means to maintain and manage all of it. Software that performs coordination and management is commercially available. The benefit of a full-scale ITS system would be that by providing park visitors with an abundance of real-time information from multiple sources, they would be able to play a vital role in managing access and limiting congestion to park sites with minimal or no assistance from GGNRA staff, excepting the requirements to maintain and operate the ITS hardware and software. The key restraints to a deployment of this level of ITS technology at GGNRA, are philosophical and financial. GGNRA is working both to determine an adequate level of ITS technology to be deployed within a park setting that is in concert with

NPS mamagement policies and other guidelines, and to determine a level of ITS technology to be deployed that is financially feasible and sustainable. Although GGNRA is acting as a local leader on this issue, the same issue must be addressed by Marin County, Caltrans and California State Parks. INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION

SYSTEMS (ITS) - ADMINISTRATIVE AND

FINANCIAL CHALLENGES The greatest ITS challenge is to design an effective system that is administratively and financially sustainable. The issue of administration includes the determination of staff duties and staff levels, as well as a determination of the best internal department to manage ITS on an ongoing basis as a new element of work duties. The pilot ITS projects deployed in 2005 showed promise, but analysis of the management structure cobbled together for 2005 clearly showed this is an important issue that needs to be addressed immediately. It cannot be overlooked and expected to solve itself. The issue of finance includes capital funding for equipment, operations funding for maintenance, and personnel funding for staff necessary to manage and operate the system. The administrative issue is complex. During ITS planning prior to summer 2005, only an intermittent level of dedicated field staff management of the ITS pilot projects was envisioned, because field staff from GGNRA and other agencies were expected to be the ‘eyes and ears’ of the system to report ongoing traffic conditions, and key technology was

48

expected to operate remotely (i.e. cellular phone service, internet, etc.) without constant oversight and management. The first lesson learned was the reality that due to requirements to perform their existing work duties, individual units of GGNRA law enforcement, maintenance and interpretation divisions were not able to consistently provide adequate parking and traffic condition field data, and the NPS Presidio Communications Center (CC) staff were not able to consistently manage internal / external communication, and oversight of ITS equipment. Even the simple ITS pilot project system assembled for the 2005 peak season required direct field staff management that was focused on transportation every day to make it operate successfully to its full potential. This fact combined with technical challenges, equipment needs, and a communication role both within and outside of GGNRA required direct daily field staff management that was focused on transportation and ITS issues. The benefit of this staff commitment was that valid real-time, or almost-real-time information was fed to the various ITS technologies that in turn consistently passed the information onto the general public, and that a stream of data was collected from several sources for application to both short-term and long-term planning and operations issues. A second lesson learned was the reality that even if the technical challenges were to be solved, direct field staff management on a daily basis, at least during the peak season, would still be critical to fulfill the internal communications role within

GGNRA and external communications role with outside agencies, and to be present to troubleshoot equipment in the event of a malfunction or an emergency requiring use of the ITS system to help provide public information. An approach to address this issue could be for GGNRA to create a prototype vision of ITS management tailored to a large national park setting that attempts to strike a balance between remote ITS operations and active direct field management. However, adoption of this approach would require the assignment of the work duties necessary to operate the ITS system to an individual or individuals among GGNRA staff. As the work duties increase or decrease over time due to changing technologies and park needs, the assignment of duties could also change. A key element to accomplish this goal would require GGNRA to embed ITS software management programs into the main GGNRA computer system or make it accessible to park staff via a parallel system. Either way requires that the programs can be accessed from any computer location within the park. This would allow staff to access ITS software systems remotely from any location in the park with a computer and the internet, and would not limit access to one or two staff, which would be the situation if the ITS software is loaded onto a laptop as was done in 2005. Safety access and control to the specialized software would be provided by protected passwords and other access limiting procedures. A challenge with this prototype vision is that the proposed work duties do not exist

49

in any staff position at GGNRA, which means that an existing position must be reclassified or a new position created. However, given the importance of traffic and parking information in relation to park operations management, and the possible impacts regarding safety and visitor access, a strong argument can be made for this being a necessary action. The same factors added to requirements to address field transportation issues and ITS equipment in the proposed in the Marin Headlands – Fort Baker Transportation Plan make an argument for GGNRA to consider the establishment of a position within the General Schedule 2130 Series of Transportation Manager, and that the position is placed either within the Law Enforcement Division or the Interpretation Division. 15 A second major ITS challenge is the development of a financially sustainable ITS vision for GGNRA. A preliminary ITS vision for GGNRA was produced by WTI in 2003, and is being further refined by

GGNRA staff. ITS technologies that are part of a pilot project test or that are under consideration for possible future implementation include: electronic message signs (PCMS units), adoption of the regional ‘511’ traveler information system to provide internet and telephone information, traffic counters, web-cameras tied to the internet, and highway advisory radio (HAR). Research to determine estimated capital and maintenance cost alternatives is essential. A draft capital and implementation plan is a 2006 goal . If the Muir Woods Shuttle continues operation past its current status as a pilot project, certain transit related ITS technologies could be added, such as real-time arrival information, and bus location information (Nextbus). A draft capital and implementation plan is a goal for 2006. _________________________________

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STAFF

The provision of seasonal Ranger staff by GGNRA to perform traffic management at Muir Woods and Stinson Beach, and by Marin County at Stinson Beach was a success during the 2005 peak season. At both locations the added uniformed staff were a visible presence noticed by visitors and local residents. At both locations the uniformed staff acted to discourage illegal parking and direct traffic which allowed parking areas and key roadways, including Highway 1, to operate much more smoothly. The action by GGNRA and Marin County should be replicated if for the 2006 peak season. The cost to the respective agencies was relatively low, but the benefits that came from the presence of the extra staff were many.

15 The General Schedule 2130 series covers positions

that involve: (1) performing, administering or

supervising technical or analytical work concerned

with planning, development, and execution of traffic

policies or programs; or (2) directing and managing

programs to obtain the economical and efficient

transportation of freight, personal property, and/or

passengers. Positions in this occupation primarily

require a knowledge of Federal traffic management

principles and policies; transportation industry

operations, practices and capabilities, special

handling or movement requirements associated with

freight, passengers, or other transportation

operations; and the relationship of traffic

management to other agency or organizational

programs and functions.

50

APPENDICES:

APPENDIX A: ITS OBJECTIVES, SUB-OBJECTIVES AND THEMES DEVELOPED FOR APPLICATIONS IN NATIONAL PARKS AND THOSE APPLICABLE TO GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL REC. AREA

APPENDIX B: PCMS APPROVED MESSAGES APPENDIX C: 511 PHONE MESSAGES – MUIR WOODS / STINSON BEACH APPENDIX D: 2004 SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC COUNTER DATA APPENDIX E: 2005 SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC COUNTER DATA APPENDIX F: TRAFFIC COUNT DATA ANALYSIS – MUIR WOODS VIA US 101 APPENDIX G: TRAFFIC COUNT DATA ANALYSIS – OTHER SITES VIA US 101 APPENDIX H: CALTRANS – GOLDEN GATE NRA MOU FOR PCMS OPERATIONS ON US 101 APPENDIX I: SUMMARY OF GENERAL CONDITIONS AND PILOT PROJECT

ACTIVITY DURING PEAK SEASON 2005

APPENDIX J: EXAMPLE OF TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNT DATA SHEET APPENDIX K : NELSON NYGAARD SURVEY FORM APPENDIX L: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

51

APPENDIX A: ITS OBJECTIVES, SUB-OBJECTIVES AND THEMES DEVELOPED FOR APPLICATIONS IN NATIONAL PARKS AND THOSE APPLICABLE TO GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL REC. AREA

National Park ITS Objectives and Sub-Objectives Developed by Western Transportation Institute (WTI) Goal 1: Enhance the Visitor Experience ** Objective 1.1: Provide real-time, accurate, convenient and relevant information to visitors to

help them make travel decisions * Objective 1.1.1: Develop predictive information that will help visitors plan their trips better * Objective 1.1.2: Provide appropriate information at major transportation decision points * Objective 1.1.3: Provide information to help visitors avoid congested locations and times * Objective 1.1.4: Provide weather, road conditions, and chain requirement information * Objective 1.1.5: Provide construction and work zone information * Objective 1.1.6: Provide information on parking availability * Objective 1.1.7: Provide information at various park sites about transit arrivals and

schedules Objective 1.1 8: Provide air quality information ** Objective 1.2: Improve visitor safety Objective 1.2.1: Improve the safety of vehicles at or approaching congested entrance

stations Objective 1.2.2: Improve the safety of vehicle travel on park roadways Objective 1.2.3: Improve the safety of vehicle travel through work zones in the park

* Objective 1.2.4: Improve the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians approaching popular destinations

** Objective 1.3: Enhance visitor access to the variety of natural, cultural, recreational and educational opportunities available at the park and surrounding areas

* Objective 1.3.1: Improve access options for visitors without automobile access * Objective 1.3.2: Provide transit service that enables visitors to see attractions that may n

not have been possible because of unavailability of parking Objective 1.4: Improve visitor convenience Objective 1.4.1: Reduce the delay to visitors waiting in long lines at entrance stations Objective 1.4.2: Decrease the difficulty in finding available campsites Objective 1.4.3: Allow visitors to make reservations for experiencing certain park activities Objective 1.4.4: Provide customized and enhanced interpretation through in-vehicle or

handheld systems Goal 2: Assist in Resource Protection ** Objective 2.1: Encourage use of alternative modes of transportation to, from or within the

park * Objective 2.1.1: Increase usage of transit, pedestrian and bicycle modes for park access * Objective 2.1.2: Increase usage of alternative transportation systems within park * Objective 2.1.3: Promote information about non-automobile alternatives Objective 2.2: Monitor and reduce vehicle emissions Objective 2.2.1: Reduce emissions of idling vehicles in parking areas Objective 2.2.2: Reduce emissions of idling vehicles at entrance gates Objective 2.2.3: Improve the monitoring of air quality in the park Objective 2.3: Protect the road infrastructure as a park resource Objective 2.3.1: Re-direct oversize vehicle traffic to reduce roadway impacts Objective 2.3.2: Reduce time required for snow removal and other roadway maintenance

National Park ITS Objectives and Sub-Objectives (continued) Developed by Western Transportation Institute (WTI) Goal 3: Improve management of the Park’s Transportation System ** Objective 3.1: Manage congestion within the park * Objective 3.1.1: Predict occurrence and duration of congestion based on historical and

real-time information * Objective 3.1.2: Monitor transportation operations and congested areas Objective 3.1.3: Reduce congestion on park roadways ** Objective 3.2: Manage incidents to reduce their impact on the park’s transportation system

and promote visitor safety Objective 3.2.1: Improve the response time to incidents along park roadways * Objective 3.2.2: Provide for prompt and efficient evacuation of visitors during major

emergencies ** Objective 3.3: Manage construction and work zone activities and special events to minimize

visitor inconvenience Objective 3.3.1: Enhance interagency coordination and communication regarding work

zones and special events Objective 3.3.2: Reduce the vehicle delay through work zones within the park * Objective 3.3.3: Use archived data to help to promote improved planning for the impacts

of special events on the local transportation system ** Objective 3.4: Manage parking facilities within the park * Objective 3.4.1: Reduce congestion in and around parking areas * Objective 3.4.2: Reduce parking outside of designated parking areas * Objective 3.4.3: Improve management of existing parking facilities to optimize parking

usage ** Objective 3.5: Manage transit systems providing access to park sites Objective 3.5.1: Improve efficiency and level of service of transit operations within the

park * Objective 3.5.2: Enhance the monitoring and coordination of various transit operations

serving the park ** Objective 3.6: Manage data to promote better transportation planning in the park * Objective 3.6.1: Enhance the reliability, accuracy, and timeliness of visitation statistics * Objective 3.6.2: Collect additional statistics to help in transportation planning (e.g.

distinguish between travelers and visitors, determine linked trips and trip patterns, count non-motorized travel

** Objective 3.7: Manage the transportation impact of the park’s visitation on surrounding Communities

* Objective 3.7.1: Manage adverse traffic impacts on local communities while preserving the economic benefits of tourist activity

* Objective 3.7.2: Promote sharing of information regarding tourist activities between the park and local communities

** = objectives found applicable to Golden Gate National Recreation Area * = sub-objective found applicable to Golden Gate National Recreation Area Note: Golden Gate National Recreation Area was found to be a candidate to apply 11 or 14 objective and 26 of 43 sub-objectives. This list is not fixed. It can be changed – with objective and sub-objective added or removed over time.

National Park ITS Themes

The objective and sub-objective shown above were bundled into seven themes designed to address eight problems at Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA). The marked boxes represent applications of the 26 sub-objectives. This table is a reprint of a table produced by WTI from a document titled Assessing Needs and Identifying Opportunities for ITS Applications in California’s National Parks (June 2004)

ITS Themes Addresing Transportation Problems at GGNRA

Theme Problem

Roa

dway

C

onge

stio

n Fo

reca

stin

g

Par

king

M

anag

emen

t an

d In

form

atio

n

Par

king

In

terc

ept

Tran

sit T

rip

Pla

nner

Dat

a C

olle

ctio

n an

d S

tora

ge

Pre

-Trip

Tr

avel

er

Info

rmat

ion

Maj

or

Em

erge

ncy

Res

pons

e

Roadway Congestion

Inadequate Access

Limited Parking

Transit Coordination & Information

Lack of Planning Data

Traveler Information

Work Zone / Even Coordination

Emergency Response

APPENDIX B: PCMS APPROVED MESSAGES The messages below were approved for use on the PCMS units located on US 101 during the summer 2005 season at Golden Gate National Recreation Area. They are listed in priority order, except for message #9. Message #9 was developed by NPS staff without input from other agencies and used only on the rare days when both Muir Woods and Stinson Beach had full parking. Therefore, its priority would be between message #3 and message #4. The messages will be renumbered for the 2006 season. CLOSED Message #1 MUIR (Flash 1)

WOODS CLOSED

Message #2 STINSON (Flash 1)

BEACH CLOSED

Message #3 MOUNT (Flash 1)

TAM CLOSED

PARKING FULL Message #4 STINSON (Flash 1) PARKING (Flash 2)

BEACH FULL Message #5 MUIR (Flash 1) PARKING (Flash 2)

WOODS FULL Message #6 MOUNT (Flash 1) PARKING (Flash 2)

TAM FULL HIGHWAY 1 Message #8 HWY 1 (Flash 1)

EXPECT DELAYS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PARKING FULL Message #9 MUIR WDS (Flash 1) PARKING (Flash 2) AND FULL STINSON

APPENDIX C: 511 PHONE MESSAGES – MUIR WOODS / STINSON BEACH The messages below were approved for use on the 511 telephone information system managed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in Oakland, CA. Visitors were able to access these messages by dialing 511 and then requesting information on either location. The message operation instructions were followed by MTC / Caltrans staff at the Bay Area Transportation Management Center (TMC) in Oakland, or the instructions were overrode by direct contact with NPS staff. They were implemented in late July 2005. Muir Woods Traffic Conditions - Muir Woods – Weekends / Holidays

to be turned on at 10am and off at 4:30pm every weekend and holiday until 9/5/05

"Muir Woods parking lots are full. Roadside parking may be available. Park Rangers recommend taking the free shuttle or arriving after 4pm."

Traffic Conditions – Muir Woods - Weekdays

to be turned on when contacted by the NPS

“Muir Woods parking lots are full. Roadside parking may be available. Park Rangers recommend arriving after 4pm.”

Stinson Beach

Traffic Conditions - Stinson Beach – Weekends / Holidays to be turned on at 11am and off at 4pm every weekend and holiday until 9/5/05:

"Expect possible delays on Highway 1 to Stinson Beach. For a recording of beach information, call: (415) 868-1922."

APPENDIX D: 2004 SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC COUNTER DATA

APPENDIX E: 2005 SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC COUNTER DATA

APPENDIX F: TRAFFIC COUNT DATA ANALYSIS – MUIR WOODS VIA US 101

APPENDIX G: TRAFFIC COUNT DATA ANALYSIS – OTHER SITES VIA US 101

APPENDIX H: CALTRANS – GOLDEN GATE NRA MOU FOR PCMS OPERATIONS ON US 101

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU)

Between the National Park Service (Golden Gate National Recreation Area) and

State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Effective June 14, 2005

for the Deployment of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS):

Portable Changeable Message Signs (PCMS)

ARTICLE I - BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A. BACKGROUND:

This MOU is established for the purpose of improving congestion, access and safety to Golden Gate National Recreation Area (a unit of the National Park Service) within southwest Marin County. Since US 101 and CA State Route 1 (maintained by Caltrans), are heavily used significantly by visitors and residents accessing GGNRA park sites, it benefits both signatory agencies to make improvements to the operations of these roads. This MOU specifically addresses the use of portable changeable message signs (PCMS) for traffic control.

B. OBJECTIVES: This MOU states that Caltrans and the National Park Service, Golden Gate National Recreation Area (hereinafter referred to as GGNRA) will support each other and work together in the deployment of technologies and equipment that may be used to relieve congestion, enhance access and improve safety in southwest Marin County. Specifically, after completion of the proper encroachment permit procedure Caltrans will allow the placement of PCMS units owned by GGNRA within the specific identified right-of-way owned by the State on US 101 in Marin County for the purposes of a pilot test of this ITS equipment.

ARTICLE II - LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY:

NPS (GGNRA) enters into this MOU under the authority of 16 U.S.C. §§1-3, and Caltrans enters into this MOU under the authority of the California Department of Transportation Cooperative Agreement Manual: Chapter 8 (1993). This MOU constitutes solely a guide to the respective intentions and policies of the parties involved. It is not intended to authorize funding for project effort nor is it a legally binding contract. Any funding commitments providing for the deposit of funds for specific work phases or project efforts committing machines or personnel time will be covered by one or more separate cooperative agreements as may be required. Any relocated facilities shall comply with Caltrans policies for encroachment and accommodations of utility installations within State highways and comply with all applicable current Master Agreements Caltrans has executed with involved agencies or utility companies.

ARTICLE III - STATEMENT OF WORK: A. EQUIPMENT AND LOCATION: This MOU provides for the installation, operation and maintenance of two portable changeable message sign units (PCMS) on US Highway 101. The first PCMS unit will be located southbound at milepost 5.05 (before Seminary Drive exit near Goodman Lumber), or southbound at milepost 5.64 (past Seminary Drive exit sign overpass). The second PCMS unit will be located northbound at milepost 2.7 (past Rodeo Avenue exit at a pullout near Caltrans callbox MR-101-30) or northbound at milepost 0.4. (between Alexander Avenue and Waldo Grade Tunnel). B. PILOT PROJECT:

1. The parties mutually agree that it is in the public interest to perform a pilot implementation of two PCMS units for use on US 101. The PCMS units will be used by both parties to post messages related to highway conditions and incidents on US 101 and CA State Route 1 along with parking lot congestion

status for NPS-GGNRA sites (i.e. Muir Woods, Stinson Beach, Muir Beach, etc.).

2. While GGNRA will retain ownership of the PCMS units and will operate the

PCMS units consistent with the provisions of this MOU, Caltrans shall be allowed to post electronic messages relating to US 101, CA State Route 1 and related highway conditions and incidents utilizing mutually acceptable procedures.

3. GGNRA and Caltrans agree to develop mutually acceptable procedures for

the operation of the PCMS units. Caltrans message requests will be sent to GGNRA or the U.S. Park Police Dispatch Center staff for placement on the PCMS units. GGNRA shall keep PCMS protocols, procedures, contact names and phone numbers associated with the PCMS use up-to-date, and shall immediately notify Caltrans in writing of all intended changes.

4. GGNRA and Caltrans will mutually develop a set of acceptable messages and establish priority levels to resolve conflicts in circumstances where more than one message is needed to be displayed on the PCMS units.

5. The parties mutually agree that due to the fact that these portable PCMS units will be used on Caltrans right-of-way, they must remain compliant with Caltrans policies, procedures, and practices and the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) relating to CMS design and placement requirements.

6. The parties mutually agree to inform the public during the planning and implementation of the Pilot Project deployment of PCMS units in all available GGNRA and CALTRANS media.

7. This MOU does not remove any other obligations of a party imposed by law to share information with other agencies.

8. The laws of the United States of America and the State of California govern this MOU.

C. NPS - GGNRA SPECIFIC OBLIGATIONS:

1. GGNRA shall provide for 100% all operations, fueling, maintenance, and administrative costs relating to the operation of the PCMS units. 2. GGNRA shall be responsible for the coordination and management of the operation of the PCMS units from the U.S. Park Police Dispatch Center located in the Presidio of San Francisco. 3. GGNRA shall apply for necessary encroachment permits for required work

and For the presence of the PCMS units within the State highway right of way, in accordance with Caltrans standard permit procedures.

4. GGNRA shall be responsible for creating and updating a PCMS use log indicating messages displayed, reason for use, time message was initiated time message was deactivated, name of operator (dispatcher), initiating agency, and whether there was a multiple need for PCMS unit at the time the message was displayed.

D. CALTRANS SPECIFIC OBLIGATIONS: 1. Caltrans, upon proper application by GGNRA, agrees to issue, at no cost, the necessary encroachment permits for the installation and use of the PCMS units at mutually agreed sites within State right-of-way on US 101 in Marin County. 2. Caltrans shall be responsible for transport and set-up of the PCMS units at the designated sites within State right-of-way on US 101 in Marin County at the

start of the heavy visitor season (approximately April [exact date for 2005 season TBD]), two (2) days following receipt of correct notice of a request from GGNRA.

3. Caltrans shall be responsible for the removal of the PCMS units from State right-of-way on US 101 and storage at the Manzanita Maintenance Yard at the end of the heavy visitor season (approximately September [exact date for 2005 season TBD]), two (2) days following receipt of correct notice of a request from GGNRA.

3. Caltrans shall be responsible for moving the PCMS units if Caltrans

determines they need to be moved for a valid reason (i.e. incident clean-up, construction project, etc.). If the PCMS units need to be moved, Caltrans shall provide notice to GGNRA of at least two (2) days prior to moving the PCMS units. An exception will be allowed for emergency situations, in which case, Caltrans shall be responsible for providing two (2) hours notice to GGNRA of that action once the PCMS unit(s) are moved.

ARTICLE IV - TERM OF AGREEMENT:

A. This MOU is made and entered into effective the 14th day of June, 2005, between the National Park Service - Golden Gate National Recreation Area, and Caltrans. It shall be valid for a period of one year, commencing upon the effective date, or until a long-term agreement between the parties is agreed upon and becomes effective, provided that such agreement becomes effective within the one year time period. If the parties agree in writing; this MOU may be extended for periods of one year beyond the original end date, provided, however the MOU cannot remain effective for a total of more than five years.

ARTICLE V - KEY OFFICIALS: A. National Park Service – Golden Gate National Recreation Area: Project Manager Paul Bignardi – Transportation Planner National Park Service Golden Gate National Recreation Area Fort Mason, San Francisco, CA 94123 Phone (415) 561-4933

PCMS Units and Corresponding Equipment Bert Carlson, Communications Manager National Park Service Golden Gate National Recreation Area Building 35 , Mesa Street Presidio, San Francisco, CA 94129 Phone (415) 561-5505 / 5510

B. California Department of Transportation:

Project Manager Alan Chow California Department of Transportation, District 4 P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623 Phone (510) 286-4577

ARTICLE VI - PRIOR APPROVAL: N/A ARTICLE VII - REPORTS AND OTHER DELIVERABLES:

A. The parties mutually agree to allow staff from the Western Transportation Institute (WTI) to have access to data generated as part of the PCMS pilot project.

ARTICLE VIII - PROPERTY UTILIZATION: A. During the off-season (approximately November – April [exact dates TBD for 2005- 2006 season]), Caltrans shall to use and operate the PCMS units during emergency situations without restriction.

B. GGNRA shall give Caltrans Manzanita Maintenance Yard staff two (2) days written

notice before the two (2) PCMS units need to be transported and placed in the Caltrans right-of-way at the mutually agreed to locations.

C. If, during the off-season (approximately October – March), following completion of the Pilot Project time frame of the 2005 heavy visitor season, a jointly perceived need

arises for the re-deployment of the PCMS units, Caltrans shall transport, set-up, and remove the PCMS units following adequate notice by GGNRA.

D. GGNRA (as the owner of the PCMS units) shall be responsible for the repair of the

PCMS units if damaged, and for the replacement of the PCMS units if lost or stolen, unless the damage or loss during an off-season emergency use by Caltrans, or if the damage or loss occurs due to Caltrans negligence within a Caltrans storage facility (i) while the PCMS units are not in use, or (ii) while the PCMS units are being transported or set-up by Caltrans pursuant to Section III (D) of this MOU. Under these circumstances, the responsibility for repair or replacement shall be with Caltrans.

ARTICLE IX - MODIFICATION AND TERMINATION: A. The MOU may be amended upon the signed agreement by both parties to clarify or better describe operations responsibilities, maintenance responsibilities, and other concerns. Any amendments must include a written document setting forth the modification(s) signed by the consenting parties. This MOU shall be in effect once all required signatures are obtained, unless otherwise modified. B. Either GGNRA or Caltrans may terminate participation in this MOU upon sixty (60) calendar days prior written notice to the other signatory party.

ARTICLE X - STANDARD CLAUSES:

A. CIVIL RIGHTS: During the performance of this MOU, the participants agree to abide by the terms of the U.S. Department of the Interior – Civil Rights Assurance Certification, of non-discrimination and will not discriminate against any person because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The participants will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed without regard to their

race, color, sexual orientation, national origin, disabilities, religion, age or sex.

B. PROMOTIONS: Caltrans will not publicize or otherwise circulate promotional material (such as advertisements, sales brochures, press releases, speeches, still and motion pictures, articles, manuscripts, or other publications), which state or imply Governmental, Departmental, bureau or Government employee endorsement of a product, service or position which Caltrans represents. No release of information relating to this Agreement may state, or imply that the United States Government approves of Caltrans’ work or considers Caltrans’ work product to be superior to other products or services.

C. PUBLICATION OF RESULTS OF STUDIES: No party will unilaterally publish a joint publication without consulting the other party. This restriction does not apply to popular publication of previously published technical matter. Publication pursuant to this MOU may be produced independently or in collaboration with others; however in all cases proper credit will be given to the efforts of those parties contributing to the publication. In the event no agreement is reached concerning the manner of publication or interpretation of results, either party may publish data after due notice and submission of the proposed manuscripts to the other. In such instances, the party publishing the data will give due credit to the cooperation provided by the other party, but will assume full responsibility for any statements on which there is a difference of opinion.

ARTICLE XI - SIGNATURES AND DATES:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, GGNRA and Caltrans by their signatures have executed this MOU.

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF RECREATION AREA TRANSPORTATION – DISTRICT 4 By:________________________ By:________________________ Superintendent Caltrans District 4 Director

Date:______________________ Date:_______________________

Approved as to legal sufficiency: Approved as to form and procedure: By:________________________ By:_________________________

Date:______________________ Date:________________________

APPENDIX I: SUMMARY OF GENERAL CONDITIONS AND PILOT PROJECT ACTIVITY DURING PEAK SEASON 2005

APPENDIX J: EXAMPLE OF TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNT DATA SHEET

APPENDIX K : NELSON NYGAARD SURVEY FORM

APPENDIX L: ACKNOWLEGEMENTS

This report was written by Paul Bignardi, Transportation Planner, Golden Gate National Recreation Area. The following National Park service staff and staff and officials from other agencies made significant contributions to the implementation of the Summer 2005 pilot transportation projects in the Marin County parklands and at Muir Woods. Golden Gate National Recreation Area Brian O’Neill, Superintendent Nancy Hornor, Chief of Planning Mike Savidge, Chief of Strategic Planning Yvette Ruan, Chief Ranger Mia Monroe, Supervisory Ranger, Muir Woods Kurt Veeck, Supervisory Ranger Constance Leonard, U.S. Park Police Bert Carlson, U.S. Park Police Dispatch Hinda Kahane, Telecommunications Specialist GGNRA IT Department Mike Pertell, Seasonal Ranger Thomas Barron, Park Transp. Scholar Intern Amy Ford, Park Transp. Scholar Intern Marin County Steve Kinsey, Supervisor, 4thDistrict Charles McGlashan, Supervisor, 3rd District Farhad Mansourian, Director, Public Works Saaid Fakharzadeh, Deputy Director, Public Works Dean Powell, Principal Planner, Public Works

Caltrans Dana Cowell, Deputy Director, District 4 Alan S. Chow, Supervising Transp. Engineer Erik Alm, Transportation Planner Joy J. Lee, Caltrans Traffic Mgmnt. Center Lindsee Tanimoto, Office of Planning, Policy and Innovation Lin Houston, Manzanita Maint. Yard Western Transportation Institutue (WTI) (Montana State University, Bozeman MT) Chris Strong, Senior Research Associate Jaimie Eidswick, Research Associate Metropolitan Transportation Commission Ben McKeever, Program Coordinator – 511 Jim Macrea, Asst. Program Coordinator - 511 California State Parks Tom Lindberg, Superint. North Bay Dist. Marin Tina Williams, Superint. North Bay Dist. Marin

David O’Connor, Contract Publicist Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District Alan Zaharadnick, Planning Director Ronald Downing, Principal Planner Cliff Koch, Transit Road Supervisor Golden Gate Transit Print Shop