1

Transportation’sBestIdeasforAmerica’s“BestIdea”:TheHistoryofAlternativeTransportationFundinginNationalParksandSustainableFundingOptionsfortheFuture

CaseyOsbornMasterofUrbanandRegionalPlanning,UniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles

Originalsubmissiondate:June6,2014337N.LaJolla,LosAngeles,CA90048

510‐213‐3953

2

''Frayedtempers,peopleholleringateachother,peopledouble‐andtriple‐parked,destroyingthevegetation.Wejustdecidedthatoneofthecriterion[sic]wewantedwastorestorethisplacetopeaceandquiet.''1

‐ZionspokesmanDennyDaviesafterthepark’sdecisionin2000tobancars

“Touristsandoutdoor enthusiastsbeware, theheavybootsof environmentalistsare

abouttostomponyourvisitorrightsinYosemiteNationalPark.”2

‐AmericansforProsperity3YouTubeVideoinresponsetoYosemite’s2013Merced

RiverPlan,whichincludedremovingparkingandotheramenities.

Youcan’thaveyourcakeandeatit,too.

‐Englishidiom

TheParks’Paradox

TherewasalotofnegativepressfollowingYosemite’sreleaseofanupdatedMerced

RiverPlanlastyear.Criticslatchedontotheplanstoremovepopularamenitiessuchasthe

swimmingpool,theartcenter,theicerink,andbicyclestands.Buttheintentwastoprotect

therivershed,andtheplansalsoproposedalternatives;abikesharingstationoutsideof

the river corridor, a temporary ice rink forwinter. Themain strategywas to limit park

visitors, including reducing the number of campsites and parking spaces. The visitors,

however,werenotpleased.TomMcClintock, theRepublicanrepresentativeofYosemite’s

district, called theplan “themost radical andnihilistic fringeof theenvironmental left.”4

Ultimately,theplandidnotsucceed,andinsteadparkingandcampingcapacitywithinthe

parkwere increased. But if park planning continues in thisway, Yosemite Valley could

somedaylooklesslikeapark,morelikeaparkinggarage.Criticsarguethatthealternative,

animprovedshuttleandregionaltransitsystem,iswildlyexpensive.Andfederalfundingis

1 Wolfson,Hannah."ZionNationalParkBansCars,StartsMandatoryShuttleBus."OnlineAthens.AthensBanner‐Herald,24Mar.2000.Web.15May2014. 2 "ENVIRONMENTALISMINFRINGESONPUBLICUSEOFYOSEMITENATIONALPARK."AmericansforProsperity.AmericansforProsperity,5Aug.2013.Web.06June2014. 3 American’sforProsperitydescribethemselvesas“anetworkofcitizensthatworkonbehalfoffreedomfortheircommunities”who“engagedebateandigniteactionbecausewebelievethatfreemarketsmakefreeandprosperouspeople.”

SeeAmericansforprosperity.orgformoreinformation. 4 Onishi,Norimitsu."APlantoSaveYosemitebyCurbingItsVisitors."TheNewYorkTimes.TheNewYorkTimes,28July2013.Web.06June2014.

3

spread as thin as ever. But what if there was a third way ‐ a way that didn’t increase

parking, but instead priced it? Could a more sustainable funding model lead to more

sustainabletransportationoptionsinthepark?

In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Organic Act, which created the

National Park System and vowed “to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic

objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such

manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future

generations."5 The NPS mission is twofold: to protect the natural environment, and to

providethepublicwithaccesstoourcountry’snaturaltreasures.Throughoutmuchofthe

ParkService’shistory,roadbuildingwastheprimarymethodtoincreaseaccesstothepark

and accommodate visitor growth.Alternative formsof transportation, including shuttles,

bicycle,andpedestriantrails,werede‐prioritizedinfavorbuildingandmaintainingcurrent

roadinfrastructure.Today,parksaremorepopularthanever‐273.6millionpeoplevisited

ournationalparksin20136,comparedwith190million7in1970‐andcongestionposesa

real threat to the environment and the visitor experience8. As protected lands, it is

imperative that parks seek out the most environmentally sustainable transportation

solutionsforthelongtermlifeofthepark.

Transportationpolicy,beitforacity,state,ornationalpark,islargelyarticulatedby

where we devote our limited financial resources.9 The National Park Service’s

transportationservicestodayrelyheavilyonfederalhighwayfunding.Thiswasn’talways

the case historically, nor is it the only option available today. Instead, the Park Service

shouldexpandandrefinetheirsuccessfulrecreationfeeprograminordertogeneratemore

revenuethroughafundingsystemthatpricesvehicleuse.Themoneygeneratedfromthese

user‐feesshouldbeusedtoinvestinpublicshuttlesandotheralternativemodes,inorder

toreducetheimpactofvehiclesonparklands.

5 Mackintosh,Barry."BIBLIOGRAPHY."NationalParkServiceHistory:HistoryoftheNationalParkService,ABriefHistory.ParkNet:NationalParkService,1999.Web.06June2014. 6 UnitedStates.NationalParkService."NationalParkServicePressReleases."NationalParksService.U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior,10Mar.2014.Web.06June2014. 7 Sarbanes,SenatorPaulS."StatementOnTheTransitInParksAct."CapitolWorlds.SunlightFoundation,13May2003.Web.06June2014. 8Aquino,JessicaFaustini."VISITORS'PERCEPTIONSOFALTERNATIVETRANSPORTATIONINYOSEMITENATIONALPARK."Thesis.ArizonaStateUniversity,2008.Academia.edu,June2008.Web.06June2014.9Wachs,Martin,Lecture,April31,2014.UCLA.

4

TheHistoryofTransportationinParks

Before the automobile, getting to and around parks wasn’t cheap. Early visitors

reachedparksby railroad,whichcouldbeprohibitivelyexpensive.The railroad industry

financed railroads to theparks and also operated lodges10. In addition to the early train

lines,visitorscametoparksinhorsedrawncarriagesandbybicycle.11Open‐toppedmotor

coaches gave visitors guided tours.12 In Yosemite the earliest roads were built by

companies that were granted exclusive franchises to build wagon trails. The Mann

Brother’sTollTrailwasbuilt in1856atacostof$700.Toaccessthetrail,“foottravelers

paid $1.00 and horseback riders $2.00 each way.”13 In 2014 prices, this would be

equivalent to $28 and $55, respectively, over five timeswhat a visitor pays to enter the

parktoday.WhenYosemiteNationalParkwasestablishedbythefederalgovernment,the

parkofferedtomaintaintheroadsifthecompanypromisednottochargeafee.14

In the early 1900s, automobiles were banned in Yosemite15. But as automobile

ownership grew, driving quickly became the preferred way to visit parks. By 1917 a

majority of visitors reached it by automobile. At the time many park patrons and

administrators,sawdrivingasanuisance. Inwhat isnowAcadiaNationalPark inMaine,

families like the Rockefellers opposed opening the roads to automobile traffic; they

vacationedawayfromcitiesinordertoavoidcarsandpreferredtotravelbycarriagewhen

visiting.16AutosinMt.Rainierwererequiredtoobtainapermitfromtheparksupervisor,

and had to obey curfews. They also had to give right ofway towagon carriages. “When

teamsapproach,automobileswilltakepositionontheouteredgeoftheroadway,17”wrote

the 1908 regulations. But this soon changed. Itwas reasoned that opening the parks to

automobileswouldmakeiteasierformorepeopletovisit,andthatthiswouldbeasmall

price to pay in order to increase the number of visitors, which in turn would justify 10 Summers,AdamB.andAdrianT.Moore."FUNDINGTHENATIONALPARKSYSTEM:IMPROVINGSERVICESANDACCOUNTABILITYWITHUSERFEES."(April2005):3.ReasonFoundation,Apr.2005.Web. 11 Greene, LindaWedel."YOSEMITE:THEPARKANDITSRESOURCESAHistoryoftheDiscovery,Management,andPhysicalDevelopmentofYosemiteNationalPark,California."U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior/NationalParkService,Sept.1987.Web. 12 .."NationalParkServiceAccomplishmentsinAlternativeTransportation."(n.d.):n.pag.Http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Natl_Park_Svc_Trans_Report.pdf.NationalParkService,2003.Web. 13 Greene, LindaWedel."YOSEMITE:THEPARKANDITSRESOURCESAHistoryoftheDiscovery,Management,andPhysicalDevelopmentofYosemiteNationalPark,California."U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior/NationalParkService,Sept.1987.Web. 14 Ibid.Page32 15 Wadsworth,ReubenEdwardW."ShuttletoSerenity:TheHistoryandImpactofZionNationalPark'sTransportationSystem."Thesis.UniversityofNevadaLasVegas,n.d.Aug.2009.Web.Pg.5 16 Park,AcadiaNational."CarriageRoadExplorersAnEducator’sGuidetoAcadia’sCarriageRoads."(n.d.):n.pag.NationalParkFoundation,1996.Web. 17 "ReportsoftheDepartmentoftheInterior,Volume1."ByUnitedStates.Dept.oftheInterior(p.477),n.d.Web.

5

protecting the land from commercial use and devoting it to recreation instead.18

Paradoxically, roadswerebuilt intoparks to increase thenumberofhumans inparks, in

ordertomakethecaseforprotectingparksfromhumanexploitation.Inordertoexpanda

nationwide system of public parks the emphasis at the time was on increasing access,

primarilyforautomobiles.

Asaresult,bothdrivingandvisitingparksbecamepopular formsof recreation in

the 1920s. Public parkways, scenic drives just beyond a city limit or a few hours away

wouldbecometheprecursortothemoderninterstatesystem19.Earlynationalparkssuch

asShenandoah inVirginia,Glacier inMontana,andSmokyMountains inTennesseewere

christenedwith scenic roadways that served as away to get to the park but also as the

park’scrownjewel.Theseroadswereawayto“provide fortheenjoymentof theparks,”

even if they didn’t provide for themselves financially. In 1924, a committee taskedwith

findingasitewithinaday’sdrivefromthegrowingcityofWashingtonD.C.recommended

what would become Skyline Drive in Shenandoah National Park. The committee,

“recognizing the proliferation of the automobile, suggested that the “greatest single

feature”oftheproposedparkshouldbea‘sky‐linedrivealongthemountaintop’”20.Tothis

day, one fifth of the paved roads inNPS are designated parkways.21 Thus, not only did

roadsbecometheprimarywaytomovethroughouttheparks,theybecameanintegralpart

of theparkexperience. It explainswhyparkadministratorsmightbe reluctant tocharge

visitors for driving on its roads ‐ the roads have become attractions within the parks

themselves.

SourcesofFederalFundingforFederalLandsTransportationProjects

EarlyFederalPartnerships

Noneoftheseparkroadswouldhavebeenbuiltiffundinghadn’tbeenmade

available.ThefirstfederalfundingforroadsinNationalParkscamewiththepassageofthe

18 Wadsworth,ReubenEdwardW."ShuttletoSerenity:TheHistoryandImpactofZionNationalPark'sTransportationSystem."Thesis.UniversityofNevadaLasVegas,n.d.Aug.2009.Web.Pg.6 19 Lecture,BrianTaylor,UCLA 20 UnitedStates.NationalParkService."TheGreatestSingleFeature."NationalParksService.U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior,07May2014.Web.06June2014. 21 UnitedStates.NationalParkService."NationalParksVisitation|ParkTravelModes."NationalParksService.U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior,n.d.Web.06June2014.

6

FederalAidRoadAct in1916, coincidentwith the foundingof theNationalPark system.

PriortothisAct,therewasnoformalstructureforfundingprojectsonfederallands.Parks

hadroadsconstructed inavarietyofways. 22Yellowstone’s first roadswerebuiltby the

ArmyCorpsofEngineers.23OtherplacespartneredwiththeCivilianConservationCorpsto

provide labor for constructing roads, trails, andbridges.Parks soonbegan to experience

rising costs formaintaining these roads, and in order to generate revenue to cover the

operation expenses, some early parks turned to entrance fees, a proxy for road use.

“Entrance feeswere charged, for example, atMt. Rainier Park beginning in 1908 and at

Yellowstone beginning in 1915. Fees atMt. Rainier Parkwere initially $6 per car,while

Yellowstone initially charged $10 per car” (Reason Foundation). In 2014 Mt. Rainier

charges$15dollarspervehicle,andYellowstone$25.Overahundredyearshavepassed

and these fees have barely budged relative to inflation. Today the majority of

transportation funding forNational Parks comes from a partnership between the FHWA

and NPS. Roughly two‐thirds of funding for transportation comes from the FHWA (also

knownasTitle23funds,whichreferencestheFHWA’ssectionintheU.S.code),andone‐

thirdoffundingcomesfromNPS(Title16funds).

ThecurrentrelationshipbetweenNPSandFHWAcanbetracedbackto1926,with

the Going to the Sun Highway, a project to build a road across the Continental Divide

throughGlacierNationalPark inMontana.ThisongoingrelationshipbetweenFHWAand

NPSrepresentsoneofthelongestinter‐agencypartnershipsinUnitedStateshistory24.

Althoughthetwoagencieswouldworktogetheronroadbuildingprojectsinparks,

for much of the early NPS history up until 1983, the majority of park transportation

projectswerepaidforbyNationalParkconstructionmoney.Thismeantthatroadprojects

competedwithotheressentialparkserviceconstructionprojectssuchassewageplantsor

bridges. Demands on all park infrastructure grew as the number of visitors to parks

increaseddramatically in the latterpartof the20thcentury,andthesinglepotofmoney

22 “HistoryoftheNPSTransportationProgram."NationalParksService.U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior,n.d.Web.06June2014. 23 "OfficeofFederalLandsHighway."FLHAboutHistory.N.p.,n.d.Web.06June2014. 24 "HistoryoftheNPSTransportationProgram."NationalParksService.U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior,n.d.Web.06June2014.

7

couldnotkeeppacewiththedemandsfornewconstructionandmaintenance.Underthis

fundingstream,transportationsystemsinnationalparksdeteriorated.25

1983PartnershipAgreement

In order to address the deteriorating transportation infrastructure in National

Parks,theFHWAandNPSmadetheirpartnershipofficialundertheSurfaceTransportation

AssistanceAct(STAA)of1982.OneprovisionoftheactwastoestablishaParkRoadsand

Parkways (PRP) funding category which would be jointly administered by the NPS and

FHWA,underthenewlycreatedFederalLandsHighwayProgram(FLHP)26.PRPcameout

ofmoneyfromtheHighwayTrustFund,whichisfinancedbygasolinetaxes27.TheNPSwas

responsible for settingpriorities forprojects and remaining committed toprotecting the

parks,andtheFHWAprovidedtheengineeringwherewithal,programoversight,andacted

asthepartnership’svoicetoCongress”28TheParkRoadsandParkwaysprogramprovided

National Parks with a dedicated source of transportation money for the first time. No

longerdidtransportationprojectshavetocompetealongsideothervitalNPSinfrastructure

projects.Oneoftheprovisionsofthe1983agreementwastoprovidedesignguidelinesfor

parkroads.Theguidelinesemphasizedroadsthatwereapartofthescenery,ratherthan

apartfromthescenery,andthatenhancedthevisitor’sexperiencebyofferingdrivesthat

were“fundamentallydesignedtomaintainanoverallcontinuingsenseofintimacywiththe

countryside of area through which is passes.29” They also advised against projects that

wouldruinthenaturalvista.“WhentheServiceisfacedwiththechoicebetweencreatinga

severe road scar to bring visitors to a destination point, or requiring visitors to walk a

considerabledistanceortoutilizeanalternatetransportationsystem‐‐thedecisionshould

be against the scar30. (Emphasis mine)” This is important because when discussing

transportationinparks,wemusterronthesideopposing“thescar.”

25 UnitedStates.NationalParkService."NPSTransportationFundingSources."NationalParksService.U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior,n.d.Web.06June2014. 26 UnitedStates.NationalParkService."NPSTransportationProgramMission."NationalParksService.U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior,n.d.Web.06June2014. 27 AGuidetoFederal‐aidProgramsandProjects.Washington,D.C.:FederalHighwayAdministration,OfficeofProgramAdministration,1999.Web. 28 "HistoryoftheNPSTransportationProgram."NationalParksService.U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior,n.d.Web.06June2014. 29 UnitedStates.DepartmentofInterior.NationalParkService.ParkRoadsStandardsMemorandum.WashingtonD.C.:n.p.,1984.Print. 30 Ibid.

8

Although the partnership provided the Park Service with a reliable source of

funding,federalfundingcutsinthelate1980s,andobligationlimitsplacedonFHWAfunds

inthelate1990sledtoparkroadinfrastructureprojectsbeingchronicallyunderfunded.As

it now stands, the Park Service has been able to slow the growth of the maintenance

backlog,buthasfallenshortofbringingparktransportationsystemsuptofullstandard31.

ABitontheMaintenanceBacklogThis would be a good point to provide a clearer picture of just how

insurmountable themaintenance backlog is. In an articlewritten by theNational ParkConservationAssociation (NPCA) calledOn theRoad toRuin, itwas estimated that theParkServicewouldneedto increase itsannual transportationbudget three‐fold just tokeepupwith theexistingmaintenanceprojects. “90percentof the9,450milesofparkroadsareinpoororfaircondition.Bycomparison,14%ofroadwaysclassifiedasruralmajor collectors in the Federal‐Aid Highways System are rated less than good oracceptable.32” Parkadvocatesarguethatfederal fundingpolicyhasonlyworsenedthebacklog.Most federal project money is dedicated to large capital projects, creating a financialincentive to let transportation infrastructure deteriorate to the point of requiringexpensivecapitaloverhaulsandimprovements,ratherthanspendingcomparativelylessannuallyonroutinemaintenance.Secondly, theNPSdoesnothavetheauthoritytotax,nor, asa federal agency, can it easily comeupwith the requisite stateor local fundingmatches inordertoqualify forFHWA’sHighPriorityProjectmoneyforeventhedirestcircumstances. Thebacklogisaseriousissuenotonlyforthedepthofitsdeficit,butalsoforthesafetyissuesthatarisefromlettingfacilitiesfallintodisrepair,orfailingtokeepupwithengineeringsafetystandards.TheNPCAreportsthatonepersoniskilledorinjuredonaparkroadevery4.5hours,whichwouldranktheParkService13thamongstatesamongroadfatalitiesandinjuries.

All this serves to explain why, with such a backlog, investing in alternativetransportation has been moved to the back burner. The backlog poses real andimmediateconcernsanditisprudentfortheParkServicetoprioritizetheseprojects.

31 UnitedStates.NationalParkService."NPSTransportationFundingSources."NationalParksService.U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior,n.d.Web.06June2014 32 "OntheRoadtoRuin:ReauthorizationoftheTransportationBillShouldAddressNationalParkNeeds."Home.NationalParksConservationAssociation,26Aug.2013.Web.06June2014.

9

TheBeginningoftheAlternativeTransportationinNationalParks

“Nomorecars innationalparks.Letthepeoplewalk.Orridehorses,bicycles,mules,

wildpigs‐‐anything‐‐[...]Wehaveagreednottodriveourautomobilesintocathedrals,[...]we

shouldtreatournationalparkswiththesamedeference,forthey,too,areholyplaces.”

‐EdwardAbbey,DesertSolitaire,1968.

In 1971 Yosemite closed the eastern section of Yosemite Valley and began a free

shuttleprogram,oneof thefirstof theparkstodoso.TheEvergladesandGrandCanyon

added shuttles in the70sand80s. 33While therewasongoing concernwithin theParks

administration about the increasing number of automobile in parks, Congress did not

becomeseriousabouttheissueuntil1999withtheTransportationEquityActforthe21st

Century (TEA‐21). TEA‐21, section 303934 required that the US Department of

Transportation(DOT)inconjunctionwithU.S.DepartmentoftheInterior(DOI)undertake

an alternative transportation needs assessment. In response to these requirements the

Park Service established theAlternative Transportation Program (ATP)35. ATP primarily

providedmoneytoparkstodevelopproposalsforalternativetransportationsystemsbut

hadno implementationmoneyof itsown36.Theprogramonlygranted$8milliondollars

annuallyfrom1999to2003,37atinyfractionofthetotal$165milliondollarbudgetthatthe

FederalLandsHighwayProgramhadallocatedtotheNPS.

Theresulting2001FederalLandsAlternativeTransportationSystemsStudy38found

that most federal lands sites could benefit from a modest seasonal transit service, and

33 "TheStateofthePark."7‐InfrastChapter(n.d.):n.pag.Yellowstone,1998.Web. 34 .."NationalParkServiceAccomplishmentsinAlternativeTransportation."(n.d.):n. 35 UnitedStates.NationalParkService."NPSTransportationFundingSources."NationalParksService.U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior,n.d.Web.06June2014 36 "InterviewwithAmyVanDoren."Telephoneinterview.17Apr.2014.37 .."NationalParkServiceAccomplishmentsinAlternativeTransportation."(n.d.):n. 38 Krechmer,Daniel,LewisGrimm,DanielHodge,DianaMendes,FrankGoetzke.FederalLandsAlternativeTransportationSystemsStudy.Denver:BRWGroup,CambridgeSystematics,2001.FederalHighwayAdministration,FederalTransitAdministration,Sept.2001.Web.

10

many more from a more comprehensive system. Fares could recoup some of the

operationalcosts.Thestudyestimatedthecoststosupporttransitinparksat$1.71billion

in2001dollars,withjustoverhalfofthisgoingtocapitalcosts.Thestudyalsoconcluded

that,whileafullfederalsubsidyprogramwouldbedesirable,itwasnotlikely,andinstead

itwouldbenecessaryforparkstoestablishpartnershipswithprivateentities,statesand

localgovernments,andotherthirdpartyorganizations.Despitethereport’spessimism,the

federalgovernmentmovedtoapproveaprogramdedicatedtosubsidizingtransitprojects

inparks,theTRIPProgram.Howeverthereportwascorrectinpredictingthattheprogram

wouldbefarfromcomprehensive.

PaulSarbanesTRIPProgram

Firstintroducedin2001andagain2003,theTransitinParksActfinallyprevailedin

2005 as part of discretionary funding in SAFETEA‐LU (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users). The Transit in Parks Act,

spearheaded by Senator Paul Sarbanes of Maryland established the Alternative

Transportation in Parks and Public Lands (ATPPL) Program, also known as the Paul S.

Sarbane’sTransit inParks(TRIP)program.39TheTRIPProgramwasadedicated funding

sourceforalternativetransportationprojectswithinandsurroundingfederallands.TRIP’s

grantswererestrictedtocapitalandplanningprojects,butdidnotrequirematchingfunds.

EligiblerecipientsincludedFederalLandManagementAgencies(FLMA),governmentswith

jurisdiction over land in the vicinity, or governments andNGOs in partnershipwith the

FLMA.From2006through2012theTRIPprogramprovidedfundingforover291projects,

andover$156milliondollars.Themajorityofprojects(66%)weresponsoredbythePark

Service, but partnerships with local governments and agencies were also successful at

securingmoney.

A sample of theTRIPprogram’s accomplishments include4.7million to purchase

railvehiclesforChugachNationalForestinAlaska,providingbusesfortheAcadiaIsland

Explorer in Maine, trollies for Gettysburg, PA, and a bicycle and pedestrian trail in

ChincoteagueNationalWildlifeinVirginia.

39 "SAFETEA‐LUDiscretionaryGrants."FTA.N.p.,n.d.Web.06June2014.

W

2012wi

forProgr

Current

T

Roads a

TheTRI

void.Th

Sequestr

“Thenet

transit f

transpor

FederalL

T

directly

used as

dollars.T

dedicate

40 UnitedStU.S.Departm

WhiletheTR

ith thepass

ressinthe2

StatusofA

Themostrec

nd Parkway

Pprogram

eoverallam

ration also

t effect is a

funding for

rtationprog

LandsTrans

TheFederal

totheNPS.

the non‐fed

Thisprovid

ed revenue

ates.NationalParmentoftheInterio

RIPprogram

sageof the

21stCentur

Alternative

centtransp

ys and crea

wasalso cu

mountofTi

led to an8

a reduction

NPS.”40 T

gramsareas

sportationP

LandsTran

Eventhoug

deralmatch

desNPSwit

source for

rkService."Alteror,n.d.Web.06Ju

Sourc

TRIPP

mexpanded

current sur

ry).

Transporta

ortationsp

ated a new

ut, and the

itle23(FHW

8%reductio

ofnearly $

The current

sfollows:

Program

nsportation

ghFLTPisf

hing funds

ththepowe

r NPS, it m

nativeFundingOune2014

ce: http://www.tr

Projectby

dalternative

rface transp

ationFundi

endingbill,

Federal La

FederalLa

WA) fundin

on inNPS a

$9millionp

t funding p

Programis

federalmon

for other f

ertoleverag

ostly goes

OpportunitiesforN

riptac.org/

Category

etransporta

portationbi

ing

MAP‐21,p

ands Transp

andsAccess

ng toNPSw

appropriate

per year, a

rograms av

sagrantpro

ney,MAP‐21

federal gran

geaddition

towards al

NationalParkSer

ationinpar

ill,MAP‐21

assedin20

portation P

sPrograms

wasreduced

d funds (Ti

28percent

vailable to

ogramthat

1permitsF

nts in lieu o

nalfunds.Al

lleviating th

rviceTransit."Na

rks,itwasc

(MovingA

012,cutthe

Program (FL

setup to fil

dby30per

itle16non

decline in

NPS altern

allocatesm

FLTPfunds

of local or

lthoughthis

he mainten

ationalParksServ

11

cutin

Ahead

Park

LTP).

ll the

rcent.

‐fee).

total

native

money

tobe

state

sisa

nance

vice.

12

backlog.Thismoneyisnotdirectlyallocatedtoalternativetransportation,butcanbeused

onalltransportationassets

FederalLandsAccessProgram

Although MAP‐21 eliminated the TRIP Program, multi‐modal transportation

fundingforpubliclandsisavailablethroughthenewFederalLandsAccessProgram(FLAP)

program.Unfortunately, thismoney isallocatedtostates,notparkunits,and isbasedon

thefollowingformula:

● 30%basedontheState'sshareoftotalrecreationalvisitationinallStates.

● 5%basedontheState'sshareoftotalFederallandareainallStates.

● 55%basedontheState'sshareoftotalFederalpublicroadmilesinallStates.

● 10% based on the State's share of total number of Federal public bridges in all

States.41

This formula is basedmostly on roadmiles (55%), indicating that FLAP ismore

concerned with road projects than transit or other alternative forms of transportation.

FLAP isalsoapoorsupplement forTRIPbecause it allows for,butdoesnot require that

thesemoniesgotoalternativetransportationprojects,anditisonlyavailabletostateand

localgovernments,nottoindividualNPSunits.InthelastcycleoffundinginCalifornia,for

instance, all of the FLTP money was issued to road projects42. While touted as a

replacementtoTRIP,theFLAPhasdemonstratedlittleobligationtotransitprojects.

TransportationAlternativesProgram

This is money for state and local governments to invest in alternative

transportation.ItwascreatedbymergingformergrantprogramincludingSafesRoutesto

SchoolandRecreationalTrail,andTransportationEnhancements.Inordertogainaccessto

these funds, NPS sites must be a designated sub‐recipient by states and Metropolitan

PlanningOrganizations(MPO).

FederalTransitAdministration(FTA)Funding

A Volpe National Transportation Systems Center report issued this year suggests

that NPS agencies take advantage of FTA formula grants that are available to rural and

41 "MAP‐21‐FactSheets‐FederalLandsAccessProgram(AccessProgram)|FederalHighwayAdministration."MAP‐21‐FactSheets‐FederalLandsAccessProgram(AccessProgram)|FederalHighwayAdministration.N.p.,n.d.Web.06June2014. 42 "InterviewwithAmyVanDoren."Telephoneinterview.17Apr.2014.

13

urbanizedareas.Some316parkunitsand146unitsareestimatedtobeeligibleforrural

area(5311)andurbanizedarea(5307)grants,respectively.TheFTAhasalsoapprovedthe

useofurbanizedareaformulagrantsforprojectsthatwereformerlyfundedunderTRIP.In

order to access these funds,NPSmust eitherpartnerwith state or local governments to

implementtransitservices,orbeadesignatedsubrecipientofthefundingfromstateand

localgovernmentsinordertousethemoneydirectly.Thesegrantsareavailabletothose

transitsystemsthatareownedbyNPSorcontractedouttooperatorsviaservicecontracts

orcooperativeagreements.

Thefederalfundingstreamfortransitinparksiscomplicated,oftenrequiringthat

the Park Service partner with regional transportation providers, state and local

governments, or private entities just to qualify formoney. If the Park Service is serious

about improving their transportation infrastructure, including investing in alternative

transportation,theymustlookattheirownmeansofraisingrevenue,ratherthanwaiting

forthefederalfundingclimatetoimprove.

TheOtherSliceofthePie:NationalParksRecreationFees

While two‐thirds of transportation funding in parks come through FHWAmoney,

theotherone‐thirdcomesfromNPSissuedfees.Between1965and1997thesefees,such

asentrancefees,weresentdirectlytotheU.S.TreasuryandapportionedtotheNPS.Inthis

way,thefeerevenueswerejustlikeordinaryappropriations,excepttheydidnothaveaset

“spend‐by”date43.

It wasn’t until 1997 that Congress created the Recreation Fee Demonstration

Program,alsoknownasFeeDemo.FeeDemoallowed50NPSunitstoestablishtheirown

feeprograminordertogeneraterevenue.Some80%of thisrevenuewasrequiredtobe

spentattheparklocationwhereitwascollected.Theremaining20%wasusedbyNPSas

discretionary spending. “Themainpurpose of FeeDemowas to determinewhetherNPS

could become financially more self‐sustaining to allow the Secretary [of the Interior]

43 "SustainableSupplementaryFundingforAmerica'sNationalParks."NationalParkHospitalityAssociationandNationalParkConservationAssociation,19Mar.2013.Web.

14

greater flexibility in setting the fee amount, and to try to reduce the maintenance

backlog.”44

In 1998 the Omnibus Management Act allowed the Park Service to charge an

additional fee to cover costs for park‐provided transportation systems, a transportation

fee.45Manyparkschosetoembedtheirtransportationfeesaspartof theirentrancefees,

which,iftheentrancefeeitselfwasnotraised,resultedinanoveralldecreaseinentrance

feerevenue.

In 2005 the Fee Demo program expired and was replaced by the Federal Lands

Recreation Enhancement Act (REA).46 Currently, fees pay for a small portion of park

services, but the revenue is growing. Roughly one third of national park system units

chargeentrancefeesandfeerevenuemakesup10%ofNPS’stotalbudget.

Feedemomoneyhasprovidednecessarysupportfundingtotransportationservices

withintheParks.In2009theshuttleprograminZionNationalParkreceived$1.03million

to purchase propane powered buses. A parking lotwas built for $340,000 in Kennesaw

MountainNationalBattlefieldinGeorgiain200447

TheGoldenGateNationalRecreationAreausedFeedemomoneytosupporthalfof

the costsof operating theMuirWoodsShuttle afterpublic landsdiscretionary funds ran

out48. Thus, Fee demo money is already being used to plug the holes in spending on

alternative transportation. In order to accommodate future growth, the NPS must 44 Ibid. 45 UnitedStates.DepartmentofInterior.NationalParkService.DirectorsOrder#22.WashingtonD.C.:n.p.,15May2010.Print. 46 Factor,Seth.EffectsofPer‐VehicleEntranceFeesonU.S.NationalParkVisitationRates.Thesis.DukeUniversity,n.d.N.p.:n.p.,n.d.Print. 47 "ImplementationoftheFederalLandsRecreationEnhancementActTriennialReportToCongress."(n.d.):n.pag.DepartmentoftheInterior,May2012.Web. 48 "InterviewwithAmyVanDoren."Telephoneinterview.17Apr.2014.

TotalRevenuefromDifferentFeeSources:Entrance‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐$221millionCamping‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐$25millionTransportation‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐$15millionConcession‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐$60millionCommercialVehicle‐$15millionPhoto/Film‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐$1million”Source:http://parkpartners.org/fundingparksfees.html

15

emphasizeotherformsoftransportationbeyondprivateautomobiles.Todothis,theNPS

shouldexpand the feedemoprogramby chargingprivate automobiles fees, anduse this

moneytoinvestinalternativetransportation.

TheRoadAheadisNotaRoad

In many ways, the way towards a more sustainable funding mechanism for

transportation in National Parks might require a look backwards. Early partnerships

betweenparksandrailroadsandtheuseofmarket‐priceduser‐feestofundparkroadsin

theearly20thcenturycanprovideablueprint for future fundingmodels.WhilethePark

Servicefirstbuiltroadstobringvisitorstoparks,nowasurplusofvisitors isdrivingthe

need for better and more sustainable transportation systems. Over the tenure of the

FHWA/NPSpartnership,federalfundinghasnotkeptpacewiththemaintenanceneeds,let

alone given the Park Service room to expand its transit options. The TRIP program, the

closest the Park Service had to a steady funding stream for alternative transportation,

lastedonlysevenyears.

Thisyear,MAP‐21willexpireandtheREAwillsunset,whichmakesthismomenta

pivotaltimefortransportationfundingandfinanceinNationalParks.InthepastyearNPS

hasissuedtwowhitepapersonthetopic,andtheNationalParksConservationAssociation

andHospitality Association haveweighed in aswell49. NPSDirector, Jonathan Jarvis has

alsomadestatementsabouttheseverityoftheNPSmaintenancebacklog,andtheneedfor

additionalfunding.

Some of the suggestions in thewhite papers and in Jarvis’s statements50 are less

about major “innovations” to financing and more about under‐utilized strategies for

leveraging funds ‐ not new revenue generators themselves, but tactics such as grants

management techniques,partneringwithprivate foundations,orgaining theauthority to

issue bonds. Other ideas include raising the gas tax by a penny as part of a “penny for

parks”program,orestablishingaNationalParksEndowmentwithnon‐federalresources.

49 "Sustainable Supplementary Funding for America's National Parks." National Park Hospitality Association and National ParkConservationAssociation,19Mar.2013.Web.50 Jarvis,JonathanB."STATEMENTOFJONATHANB.JARVIS,DIRECTOR,NATIONALPARKSERVICE,DEPARTMENTOFTHEINTERIOR,BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, FOR AN OVERSIGHT HEARING TO CONSIDERSUPPLEMENTALFUNDINGOPTIONS TOSUPPORTTHENATIONALPARKSERVICE’SEFFORTSTOADDRESSDEFERREDMAINTENANCEANDOPERATIONALNEEDS."N.p.,15July2013.Web.

16

However, none of these strategies increase the self‐sufficiency of the Park Servicemore

thantheproposaltoincreasefeerevenue.WhiletheNPSisfocusedonshort‐termwaysto

reduce the backlog, they should instead be focused on increasing park revenue through

userfees,andre‐committingthemselvestomoresustainablemodesoftransportation.

ANew‐OldModel:ChargeCars,PayforShuttles

“There’s just toomanypeoplehere,” saidMr.Chytraus,a residentofCarlsbad,Calif. “It’sa

beautifulplace,butwehavetobeconsciousofourfootsteps.Butthebikeshavenoemissions.I

havemoreproblemswith thenumberofcarscoming in. If theybusedpeople inandadded

biking,thatwouldbethewaytogo.”51

‐ VisitoronYosemite’splanstocurtailhumanactivityinthepark

The National Park Service understands that transit and alternative forms of

transportation are fundamental to its mission of protecting the parks. They must now

adjust their priorities accordingly. What frequently derails plans for transit projects in

parks is cost.AnewspaperarticleonYosemite’s2000public transitplanexplains that it

“ran into trouble when a study by transportation consultants estimated that it would

require a fleet of 348 buses and cost $217.6million to start and $17.7million a year to

operate.”52Whiletheaforementionedplandideventuallyincreasepublictransitaccessto

Yosemite,YosemiteRestorationTrustPresident JanetCobbwarnedaboutof theperilsof

under‐pricingcars.“I'mworriedaboutthevoluntaryaspect(ofcartravel),"shesaid."Right

now, you can drive into Yosemite for $20, but it costs $34 to take a (private) bus."53 In

order tomake transit work, NPSmustmake the case that cars need to be pricedmore

highly.Cars, theprimaryusersofpark roads, imposeagreat cost to road infrastructure,

pollute, and create congestion. These days, cars are “the scar” in parks; they should be

priced at a rate thatmatches their impact. Someparks are already beginning to do this.

51 Onishi,Norimitsu."APlantoSaveYosemitebyCurbingItsVisitors."TheNewYorkTimes.TheNewYorkTimes,28July2013.Web.06June2014. 52 Brazil,Eric."PlantoBanCarsinYosemiteFails."SFGate.SanFranciscoChronicle,4Aug.1998.Web.06June2014. 53 Martin,Glen."PlanforYosemiteRejectsAutoBan/ShuttleBusServiceCouldBeginin'99."SFGate.SanFranciscoChronicle,5Aug.1998.Web.06June2014.

17

PinnaclesNationalMonumentisconsideringaprogramtodoubletheentrancefeeto$20

andinvestthemoneyinashuttleprogram.54Notonlyaresomeparksinterested,butmany

membersofthepublicsupportreducingcaruseinparks.Referringtothe2000Yosemite

plan,Cobbsaid,"TheNationalParkServicehasblinked(bynotpromotingacarban)[…]

The public is ahead of the park service on this. In a recentAmerican Automobile

Associationpoll, 60percentof the respondents said theywanted togetoutof their cars

whileinYosemite."55However,ratherthanbancarsoutright,theParkServicecanexpand

therangeoftransportationchoicesavailable,andmakesurethattheyarecompetitivewith

theautomobilethroughpricingandincreasedservices.

BecausetheNPS’sdecadeslongpartnershipwithFHWAhasmostlyleftthematthe

mercyoffederalspendingcuts,theParkServicemusttakemattersbackintoitsownhands.

The National Park Service could start by creating a mobility department,

responsibleforfinancing,designing,andmanagingtransportationprojectswithinthePark

Service.Theshuttleprogramsinparksaremuchmorecomprehensivethantheywere30

yearsago,andtheadministrativestructureoftheParkServiceshouldreflectthis.Whilethe

Park Service has many landscape architects, and the FHWA has brought engineering

expertise,theParkServicehascomparativelyfewtransportationplanners56.

The first order of business for this department would be to restructure the

recreation fees. Most entrance fees charge by the vehicle. While this might serve to

encouragepeopletocarpoolintoparks,feesshouldbetieddirectlytospecificuses.Ifthe

feeprovidesentranceintothepark,thechargeshouldbebasedonthenumberofpeople,

ratherthanthenumberofvehicles,thatenterthepark.WhiletheNPSreferstothefeepaid

at the gate as an “entrance fee,” the signage often reads “Private Family Auto.” This

misleadstheusertobelievethattheyarepayingforthepriceoftheircarenteringthepark

ratherthanforadmissiontotheparkitself.

54 Beppler‐Dorn,Karen."ProposedFeeIncreaseforTransportationServices."NationalParksService.U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior,29Dec.0000.Web.06June2014. 55 Martin,Glen."PlanforYosemiteRejectsAutoBan/ShuttleBusServiceCouldBeginin'99."SFGate.SanFranciscoChronicle,5Aug.1998.Web.06June2014. 56 "InterviewwithAmyVanDoren."Telephoneinterview.17Apr.2014.

18

InYosemite,forinstance,avehiclepays$20,butapersonwalkingintotheparkor

coming inby bike has to pay $10. Five peoplewalking into the parkpay two and a half

timesmorethanfivepeopleenteringviacar.

Oncetheentrancefeeischargedperperson,withdiscountsforseniorsorchildren,

parkscanchargeforvehiclesatadifferentpointinthevisit.Theprimarywaytoestablisha

feeforcarswouldbethroughparking.Parkingshouldbechargedbytheday,withmulti‐

daypassesanoption.Atcertainpopulartrailheads,parkingshouldbebythehour,giving

peoplethechoicetopaylessiftheyareonlygoingforahalfdayhike.

LastyearYosemitehad3,996,017visitors.Basedonsurveys,wecanestimatethat

96%of thementered theparkby car57, for a total of3,836,176million.Theaverage car

carried2.9passengers.Sincecurrentlychargesare$20pervehicle,iftheaveragecarwere

tobechargedperpersonratherthanperauto,Yosemitecouldbringinanadditional$10

percar,or38milliondollarsayear.Iftheparkalsostartedchargingvehiclesviaparking

fees, those 1.2 million vehicles58 would result in revenue of $6 million, and that’s only

assuming a meager $5 charge for parking. Transportation fees, or the fees for shuttle

service,arealreadyapartoftherecreationfeeschedule,andsotheshuttlesshouldalsobe

chargedunderthisauthority.Asmallfareof$1mightbeaplacetostart.Ifcollectingfare

onashuttleisahassle,thenthefeeshouldbeclearlylistedattheentrancegate.

The$38millionmaybeadropinthebucketcomparedtothecapitalcostsestimates,

but this back of the napkin math is just the beginnings of thinking about the financial

implicationsofchargingvehiclefees.Ifthispricingreducedthenumberofpeopledriving

intotheparksby50%,whichishighlyunlikely,theremaining17millionwouldstillcover

annualoperatingcosts.

Ifitseemsunrealisticthatpeoplewillfindalternativewaysofenteringthepark,we

need only look back to 1980, another point in time when Yosemite was considering

expandingtransitoptions.AnarticleintheSFChroniclewrote,“Requiringvisitorstopark

their cars at distant lots and ridebusesor someother formof transit into the valley, as

suggested by the 1980 plan, is not realistic in the foreseeable future, the report said. It

57 VisitorServicesProject:YosemiteNationalParkVisitorSurvey.Rep.Winter:SocialScienceProgram,NationalParkService,withtheUofIdaho,ParkStudiesUnit,2008.Print. 58(3.8million)/(averageof3peoplepercar)

wouldco

Regional

TodayY

different

Whatab

B

coverde

withthe

be a nu

Services

thatmig

So

T

legislatu

statedef

Service ‐

pavingp

whereco

59 Roderick,June2014.

osttoomuc

l Transport

YARTSprovi

tlines.

bouttheMa

Butwhatwi

ecadesdelay

ehopethati

mber one

shouldalso

ghtbeablet

ource:http://ww

The Park Se

urebrieflyfl

ficit.Ifthisc

‐ keeperof

projects and

ongestionis

Kevin."ParkServ

handthere

tation Syste

idestransit

aintenance

ill becomeo

yedmainten

increasedfe

concern wh

conductac

obereturn

ww.npca.org/news

Do

ervice shou

floatedthei

canpassfor

f wild lands

d re‐focus e

sthemosts

viceBacksOffon

eareproble

em, YARTs

tservicefro

Backlog?

of the imm

nance,road

eerevenue

hen conside

comprehens

edtogravel

s/media‐center/f

oesthisroa

uld return

ideaofrepl

rstatelevel

s rather tha

energieson

evere.

BanningCarsinY

msoflogist

, a regiona

omgateway

ensebacklo

dmaintenan

canslowth

ering which

siveinvento

lordirt.

fact‐sheets/on‐th

adreallyn

some road

lacingpaved

ltransporta

an civilized

n alternative

Yosemite."LosAn

tics.”59Desp

al partnersh

ycommunit

og? Sincew

nceprojects

hebackloga

h projects

oryoftheir

he‐road‐to‐ruin.ht

eedtobefi

ds to their

droadswit

ationpolicy,

ones ‐ coul

e transport

ngelesTimes.Los

pitethis,th

hip was fo

tiestothep

we can’t sum

swillhavet

accumulatio

to prioritiz

roadsandd

tml

fixed?

natural st

thgravelw

,perhapsth

ld lower th

ationoptio

AngelesTimes,0

eYosemite

unded in 1

parkalongt

mmonmone

tobepriori

on.Safetysh

ze, but the

determiner

tate. The T

whenfacing

heNational

epriorityo

ns in thep

02Sept.1989.We

19

Area

1992.

three

ey to

tized

hould

Park

roads

Texas

their

Park

of re‐

laces

eb.06

20

AretheAlternativesanyBetter?

It’s important to note that there is no one funding mechanism or transportation

modethatwillsolvetheParkService’stransportationwoesandeliminateallhumanimpact

ontheenvironment.Yosemite’soriginalMercedRiverPlansoughttobanbicyclesfromthe

river corridor. Even at the National Mall in DCwhere there isn’t a fragile ecosystem to

protect, NPS officials prevented bike sharing stations from being installed60.While tour

busesarepopularandtakecarsofftheroad,theycontributefarmoretoroaddeterioration

thansingle‐occupancyvehicles.61Humanswalkingontrailsdoplentyofdamagewiththeir

owntwofeet.Thustheproperpricingofvehiclesisnotintendedtounfairlypenalizecars,

buttohavetheirfeesmatchcosts.

WhyWeNeedTransitinParks

Butwhatofthechargesofthe“heavybootsofenvironmentalism?”bearingdownon

Americanstorestricttheiraccesstothelandthat istheirbirthright?Doeschargingmore

forcarsinfringeonourrighttousepublicland?Infact,itmightbetheopposite.Charging

moreforvehiclesonparklandsdoesn’trestrictpeople’saccess,itexpandstransportation

options within the park. More importantly, it guarantees future access by being more

environmentally sustainable and protecting parks for the people in perpetuity. Charging

higherfeestovehiclesenteringtheparkswouldallowthosepeoplewhovaluetheirtime

highlytopayextrafortheconvenienceofhavingacarinthepark.Thosethatcanaffordto

spendmoretimegettingaroundcantakethelowcostshuttleservice.Somepeoplebelieve

thattheshuttlesystemwouldbetooslow,butsincemostpeoplevisitingnationalparksare

onvacation,shuttlescanhavebannersthatread“relax,you’reonvacation, letusbeyour

driver.” The Park Service could also consider expanded bicycle rental or bike sharing

services at sites where it is appropriate. A bicycle would be an appropriate mode of

transportationforcertainusers,andcouldenhancetherecreationalexperience.

For thepeoplewho enjoydriving for driving’s sake, still one of themost popular

ways to visit parks, they are free todriveon roads; theywill onlybe chargedonce they

60 "ParkServiceSaysNoBikeSharingonNationalMall."‐GreaterGreaterWashington.N.p.,n.d.Web.06June2014. 61 UnitedStates.DepartmentofInterior.NationalParkService.ParkRoadsStandardsMemorandum.WashingtonD.C.:n.p.,1984.Print.Page9.

21

leavetheircarinaparkingspot.ScenicByways,manyofwhichcurrentlychargeentrance

feesshouldconsidertransitioningtotollssoastoreflecttheimpactofdrivingontheroad.

When instituting this enhanced user‐based fundingmodel, NPS could look to the

original Fee Demonstration program for inspiration and plan to pilot the model before

adopting the policy system‐wide. Certain parks could act as demonstration sites for

innovative, user‐based pricing models based on increased entrance and parking fees.

Through a combination of paring down the list of maintenance projects and more

efficientlypricingvehicleuse, theNPScanaimtoswaptheshareofTitle16andTitle23

fundsthatgointotheirtransportationbudgeteveryyear.Inthefuture,two‐thirdsshould

come from NPS’s own revenue, and one‐third from the FHWA Federal Lands Highway

Program.

While there is some concern over whether charging more to enter parks would

disproportionatelyaffectpoorpeople,inrealitycampingandotherformsofvacationingin

nationalparksisstilloneofthecheapestformsofvacations.Includingparking,afamilyof

four can enjoy the park for $45,which is one‐tenth the cost of that same family to gain

entrancetoDisneyland62.

It is also good to remember that when considering transit in parks, context is

important.Yosemiteismilesawayforthenearestmetropolitanarea,butmuchofGolden

Gate National Recreation Area is just across the Golden Gate from San Francisco. Parks,

NationalMonuments,andNationalHistoricsitesthatareinmoreurbanizedareasshould

tap into thepreexisting transportationnetwork.Yetevenrural sites can lookathow the

existingregionaltransitnetworkscanprovideaccesstonearbyparks.

There is a future for alternative transportation in parks, but first our visitor fees

must reflect our values. Perhaps Senator Sarbanes said it best, “I believe thatwehave a

clear choice before us: we can turn paradise into a parking lot‐‐or we can invest in

alternatives63.”

62"ThemeParkTickets."ThemeParkTickets.DisneylandResort,n.d.Web.20Jan.2015. 63 Sarbanes,SenatorPaulS."StatementOnTheTransitInParksAct."CapitolWorlds.SunlightFoundation,13May2003.Web.06June2014.

source:htttp://lalh.org/nps‐‐design‐tradition

“TheGr‐21st‐century/

reatOutdoo

ors”

22

23

Bibliography AGuidetoFederal‐aidProgramsandProjects.Washington,D.C.:FederalHighwayAdministration,OfficeofProgramAdministration,1999.Web. Aquino,JessicaFaustini."VISITORS'PERCEPTIONSOFALTERNATIVETRANSPORTATIONINYOSEMITENATIONALPARK."Thesis.ArizonaStateUniversity,2008.Academia.edu,June2008.Web.06June2014.Beppler‐Dorn,Karen."ProposedFeeIncreaseforTransportationServices."NationalParksService.U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior,29Dec.0000.Web.06June2014. Brazil,Eric."PlantoBanCarsinYosemiteFails."SFGate.SanFranciscoChronicle,4Aug.1998.Web.06June2014.Factor, Seth.Effects of Per‐Vehicle Entrance Fees on U.S. National Park Visitation Rates.Thesis.DukeUniversity,n.d.N.p.:n.p.,n.d.Print"Historyof theNPSTransportationProgram."NationalParks Service.U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior,n.d.Web.06June2014."ENVIRONMENTALISMINFRINGESONPUBLICUSEOFYOSEMITENATIONALPARK."AmericansforProsperity.AmericansforProsperity,5Aug.2013.Web.06June2014. Greene, Linda Wedel."YOSEMITE: THE PARK AND ITS RESOURCES A History of theDiscovery,Management,andPhysicalDevelopmentofYosemiteNationalPark,California."U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior/NationalParkService,Sept.1987.Web.ImplementationoftheFederalLandsRecreationEnhancementActTriennialReportToCongress."(n.d.):n.pag.DepartmentoftheInterior,May2012.Web."InterviewwithAmyVanDoren."Telephoneinterview.17Apr.2014Jarvis, Jonathan B. "STATEMENTOF JONATHAN B. JARVIS, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARKSERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ONENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, FOR AN OVERSIGHT HEARING TO CONSIDERSUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING OPTIONS TO SUPPORT THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE’SEFFORTSTOADDRESSDEFERREDMAINTENANCEANDOPERATIONALNEEDS."N.p., 15July2013.Web.Krechmer, Daniel, Lewis Grimm, Daniel Hodge, Diana Mendes, Frank Goetzke.FederalLands Alternative Transportation Systems Study. Denver: BRW Group, CambridgeSystematics,2001.FederalHighwayAdministration,FederalTransitAdministration,Sept.2001.Web.

24

Littlejohn,Margaret, Bret H.Meldrum, and Steven J. Hollenhorst.Yosemite National ParkVisitor Study: Summer2005.Moscow, ID: Social ScienceProgram,NationalPark Service,U.S.Dept.oftheInterior,2006.Web.Mackintosh,Barry."BIBLIOGRAPHY."NationalParkServiceHistory:HistoryoftheNationalParkService,ABriefHistory.ParkNet:NationalParkService,1999.Web.06June2014. "MAP‐21‐FactSheets‐FederalLandsAccessProgram(AccessProgram)|FederalHighwayAdministration."MAP‐21‐FactSheets‐FederalLandsAccessProgram(AccessProgram)|FederalHighwayAdministration.N.p.,n.d.Web.06June2014.Martin,Glen."PlanforYosemiteRejectsAutoBan/ShuttleBusServiceCouldBeginin'99."SFGate.SanFranciscoChronicle,5Aug.1998.Web.06June2014."OfficeofFederalLandsHighway."FLHAboutHistory.N.p.,n.d.Web.06June2014."OntheRoadtoRuin:ReauthorizationoftheTransportationBillShouldAddressNationalParkNeeds."Home.NationalParksConservationAssociation,26Aug.2013.Web.06June2014.Onishi,Norimitsu."APlantoSaveYosemitebyCurbingItsVisitors."TheNewYorkTimes.TheNewYorkTimes,28July2013.Web.06June2014. Park,AcadiaNational."CarriageRoadExplorersAnEducator’sGuidetoAcadia’sCarriageRoads."(n.d.):n.pag.NationalParkFoundation,1996.Web "ParkServiceSaysNoBikeSharingonNationalMall."‐GreaterGreaterWashington.N.p.,n.d.Web.06June2014.Roderick,Kevin."ParkServiceBacksOffonBanningCars inYosemite."LosAngelesTimes.LosAngelesTimes,02Sept.1989.Web.06June2014."Reports of the Department of the Interior, Volume 1." By United States. Dept. of theInterior(p.477),n.d.Web."SAFETEA‐LUDiscretionaryGrants."FTA.N.p.,n.d.Web.06June2014.Sarbanes,SenatorPaulS."StatementOnTheTransitInParksAct."CapitolWorlds.SunlightFoundation,13May2003.Web.06June2014.Service,NationalPark,andU.S.DepartmentOfTheInterior.AlternativeTransportationinParksandPublicLandsProgram(n.d.):n.pag.NationalParkService,June2009.Web."TheStateofthePark."7‐InfrastChapter(n.d.):n.pag.Yellowstone,1998.Web.

25

Summers, Adam B. and Adrian T. Moore. "FUNDING THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM:IMPROVINGSERVICESANDACCOUNTABILITYWITHUSERFEES."(April2005):3.ReasonFoundation,Apr.2005.Web."Sustainable Supplementary Funding for America's National Parks." National ParkHospitalityAssociationandNationalParkConservationAssociation,19Mar.2013.Web.United States. Department of Interior. National Park Service.Park Roads StandardsMemorandum.WashingtonD.C.:n.p.,1984.Print.Page9.UnitedStates.DepartmentofInterior.NationalParkService.DirectorsOrder#22.WashingtonD.C.:n.p.,15May2010.Print.UnitedStates.NationalParkService."NPSTransportationFundingSources."NationalParksService.U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior,n.d.Web.06June2014UnitedStates.NationalParkService."NPSTransportationProgramMission."NationalParksService.U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior,n.d.Web.06June2014. UnitedStates.NationalParkService."TheGreatestSingleFeature."NationalParksService.U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior,07May2014.Web.06June2014. 1UnitedStates.NationalParkService."NationalParksVisitation|ParkTravelModes."NationalParksService.U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior,n.d.Web.06June2014.UnitedStates.NationalParkService."NationalParkServicePressReleases."NationalParksService.U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior,10Mar.2014.Web.06June2014. .."NationalParkServiceAccomplishmentsinAlternativeTransportation."(n.d.):n.VisitorServicesProject:YosemiteNationalParkVisitorSurvey.Rep.Winter:SocialScienceProgram,NationalParkService,withtheUofIdaho,ParkStudiesUnit,2008.Online.Wachs,Martin,Lecture,April31,2014.UCLA.Wadsworth,ReubenEdwardW."ShuttletoSerenity:TheHistoryandImpactofZionNationalPark'sTransportationSystem."Thesis.UniversityofNevadaLasVegas,n.d.Aug.2009.Web.Pg.5Wolfson,Hannah."ZionNationalParkBansCars,StartsMandatoryShuttleBus."OnlineAthens.AthensBanner‐Herald,24Mar.2000.Web.15May2014.