Transportation and Environmental Consulting
Comments on Yosemite National Park Valley Improvement Plan
Links to other resources related to the Yosemite National Park Valley Improvement Plan
Back to the Darrah Management Group Home Page
Comments on the Yosemite Valley Improvement Plan
January 20, 1998
Prepared by The Darrah Management Group
This issue paper identifies several concerns with the transit and parking elements of the Yosemite Valley Implementation Plan (VIP). A "Flexible Transportation System" (FTS) is proposed. The FTS alternative may be used in part or as a whole to replace the transportation solutions proposed in Alternatives 2 or 3 of the Valley Implementation Plan.
Section III. Introduction
Section IV. Identification of adverse environmental, social and economic impacts
Section V. The Flexible Transportation System
Section VI.Conclusions and Recommendations
Much hard work and expense has been incurred by the National Park Service on behalf
of the people of the nation to develop four alternatives for carrying out the provisions of
the 1980 General Management Plan. The transportation solutions presented in
Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 of the VIP are consistent with the analysis presented in
the Yosemite Transportation Study. The concept of establishing a visitor activity center
in the Taft Toe area has merit. Establishing an activity center with some parking at Taft
Toe would alleviate congestion in east Yosemite Valley, and disperse the day visitor
population thereby decreasing visitor density. This issue paper however argues that the
specific transit and parking proposals made in VIP alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4 are not
consistent with the Yosemite General Plan, and further that:
This issue paper asserts that the transit and parking components of all of the VIP
alternatives fail to adequately complement the VIP recommended measures to improve
management of the natural and cultural resources of Yosemite Valley.
This paper identifies areas of concern with the transit and parking provisions of the
proposed alternative (Alternative 2) and recommends instead that the final VIP include
a Flexible Transportation System (FTS). The Flexible Transportation System
recommended in this paper presents a Transportation System Management (TSM)
alternative which will permit cost effective and efficient management of the Yosemite
Transportation System during periods of low visitor use and during periods of peak
visitor use. The FTS will permit gradual progress toward accomplishment of the long
term goals of the Yosemite General Plan to reduce or eliminate access by private
vehicles to Yosemite Valley.
Flexible Transportation System: Within the context of this document, the "Flexible
Transportation System," or FTS consists of a transportation systems management
approach for Yosemite Valley which includes the operation of a Yosemite Valley shuttle
system, parking management of disbursed parking facilities both in and outside of
Yosemite Valley, an excursion bus program that facilitates secondary transportation to
destinations within Yosemite National Park but outside the Valley, and active
participation in a regional transportation system designed to decrease private
automobile use to access Yosemite Valley by park visitors and employees.
Transportation Systems Management: Transportation Systems Management or TSM is
an approach to planning and implementing a program which maximizes the use of
existing capital transportation facilities such as roads, parking lots and buses in a
manner that allows cost effective management of these resources.
Primary Transportation: Within the context of this issue paper primary transportation
means initial travel by visitors or employees from an origin outside of Yosemite Valley
to their initial destination in Yosemite Valley.
Secondary Transportation: Within the context of this issue paper secondary
transportation means any travel by visitors or employees between any origin in
Yosemite Valley and any destination in Yosemite Valley or Yosemite National Park.
Headway: The service frequency of vehicles operating on a particular route or segment
of a transit system. The time interval between buses traveling the same route or segment
in the same direction.
ADA: The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1991
The transportation solutions presented in the VIP are inconsistent with the Yosemite
General Plan. The Yosemite General Plan calls for elimination of private vehicles from
the Valley.
"does not formally assess the proposals for a regional transportation system, but
considers actions that might be undertaken directly by the National Park
Service."
The plan further states,
"however the National Park Service considers the development of a regional
transportation system to be the preferred long term approach for transporting
people to the park. Consequently the alternatives presented anticipate a regional
transportation system and are designed to compliment the efforts of the YARTS
group to develop such a system."
Alternative 2 fails to relocate any parking to sites outside the Valley, but merely
relocates the negative environmental impact of traffic congestion and parking to an
alternative Yosemite Valley location.
The responsibility for planning and funding the regional transportation system remains
to be determined by the financial study to be conducted by the Yosemite Area Regional
Transportation Strategy (YARTS) group. Although federal funding is identified in the
VIP as a "need," the federal allocation for this funding if available will come following
the completion of the "financial plan" by YARTS.
The cost of implementing the regional transportation system does not appear as either a
capital or operating expense in the cost estimates in VIP Appendix A. It is assumed that
a separate federal allocation for the operation of a regional transportation system will be
necessary. Allocation of these "needed" funds will be dependent upon the
State/Federal transportation fund allocation system administered by the Federal Transit
Administration, the California Transportation Commission and Caltrans rather than
through the "special allocation" from Congress as part of the National Park Service effort
to fund the Yosemite Valley Implementation Plan. This implies local matching
requirements, and therefore a major new locally generated funding (tax) measure in
addition to passenger revenue generated by transit fares.
The Transportation Study summarized in Appendix D of the VIP evaluated the capital
and operating cost of three alternative transportation scenarios. In two of these
scenarios, the plan evaluated shuttle systems to transport day use visitors from remote
"staging" areas outside of Yosemite Valley to the Yosemite Village/Camp 6 area.
Table D-2 of Appendix D compares the remote staging area alternatives with an in-
valley staging area. The in-valley staging area was assumed to be located at Taft Toe for
this comparison.
II.Table of Contents
A. Purpose:
The specific transportation solutions proposed in Alternatives 1 and 4 will make
virtually no progress in meeting General Plan goals to reduce traffic and congestion
in Yosemite Valley.
The specific transportation solutions proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 of the VIP
could actually worsen Yosemite Valley traffic congestion, and will in the long term
inhibit the enjoyment of the natural and scenic qualities of Yosemite.
The specific transportation solutions proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 could have
unmitigated adverse environmental, social and economic impacts not only upon
Yosemite Valley, but upon the counties surrounding Yosemite National Park.
The specific transportation solutions proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3, while they
have the stated intent of enhancing the enjoyment of the natural and scenic qualities
of Yosemite, could fundamentally change the nature of day use of the Valley in a
manner which may disadvantage some socioeconomic and ethnic groups.
Immediate elimination of all day use visitor parking in the Yosemite Village/Camp
Curry areas will force all year operation of a shuttle system. This will be inefficient,
and will ineffectively allocate federal resources with questionable environmental
benefit.
B. Definitions
A. Inconsistency of VIP alternatives with the Yosemite General Plan.
Alternatives 1 and 4 propose no significant effort to accomplish the long term goals
of the Yosemite General Plan to reduce or eliminate access by private vehicles to
Yosemite Valley.
Alternative 2 merely relocates some of these vehicles to a new parking lot in the Taft
Toe area of Yosemite Valley.
Alternative 3 merely relocates some of the same vehicles to a new parking lot in the
Pohono Quarry area of Yosemite Valley.
Reliance by VIP Alternative 2 on a regional transportation system is unrealistic without
active economic participation in funding the regional transportation system by the
National Park Service. This is evident from the economic analysis provided in Appendix
D to the VIP. Although the VIP calls for the National Park Service to "seek to implement
policies" that promote the development of a regional transportation system, The VIP in
its own words,
No financial participation by the National Park Service in a regional transportation
system is proposed by the VIP.
B. Why the proposed alternative (Alternative 2) fails to meet Yosemite
General Plan goals
| Comparative Measure | Staging Area | Remote In Park | Taft Toe |
|---|---|---|---|
| #Parking Spaces | 2,720 | 2,470 | 1,840 |
| # of Buses Required | 83 | 61 | 21 |
| Const. & Equip Cost | $27,337,000 | $21,692,000 | $10,864,000 |
| Ann. Ops. & Maint. Cost | $21,639,000 | $15,190,000 | $3,158,000 |
| Average Delay to Travelers | 132 min | 97 min | 23 min |
Table D-2, above demonstrates that it is less expensive for the Park Service to establish the Taft Toe staging area than it is to establish either multiple remote staging areas outside the park or multiple remote staging areas inside the park at areas such as Badger Pass and Crane Flat. Establishing multiple remote staging areas outside the park would require the Park Service to operate a shuttle system from those lots which would be parallel to the "regional transportation system" identified in Alternative 2 of the VIP. By selecting the Taft Toe site over the multiple remote staging sites outside the park, the Park Service will save $16,473,000 in construction and equipment costs, and $18,481,000 in recurring annual operations and maintenance expense.
For practical and economic reasons, after evaluating the comparative cost of operating such a remote shuttle system, the Yosemite Transportation Plan recommended the Taft Toe staging area.
VIP Alternative 2 with its selection of the Taft Toe site reduces the apparent Park Service cost of operating the shuttle system. Alternative 2 however leaves National Park Service participation in the regional transportation system uncertain.
The Valley Implementation Plan (VIP) does refer to the development of a regional transportation system. This system would, if fully developed, eliminate the need for the parking lot at the Taft Toe staging area, thereby further reducing Park Service obligations. The VIP does not provide for any National Park Service contribution toward regional transportation system capital and operating costs. No contribution is listed in the plan's cost estimates (Appendix A to the VIP.)
In Alternatives 2 and 3, the administrative and financial responsibility of establishing a regional transportation system is delegated to the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation Strategy (YARTS) group. By intent, the VIP does not formally assess proposals for a regional transportation system. The VIP fails to incorporate significant financial participation by the National Park Service in the development and operation of the regional transportation system.
The selection of either Alternative 2 or 3 will result in the total elimination of all east Yosemite Valley parking and the construction of either a major new parking lot at Taft Toe or parking structure at Pohono Quarry. No provision is made for National Park Service participation in the development and operation of a regional transportation system. Thus the VIP merely relocates day use visitor parking to an alternate site in Yosemite Valley. VIP Alternative 2 fails to accomplish the goals of the Yosemite General Plan.
The economic burden of paying for the capital and operating costs of a regional transportation system to deliver even 5,568 peak day riders (1920 autos X 2.9 riders per auto) to Taft Toe from remote parking locations to Yosemite Valley is an unrealistic and inequitable burden to place upon the surrounding affected communities.
A significant local match is required for all state and federal transit funding. This is because the transit assistance funds granted to local agencies by state and federal transportation agencies are granted for the purpose of assisting local agencies in meeting their "local" transit needs. Clearly the Yosemite General Plan has established the development of a regional transit system as a national priority based upon the imperative to better manage the environmental and cultural resources of a national park of world wide significance. Significant federal participation in the development and operation of a regional transportation system should be incorporated into VIP.
Furthermore, no provisions are made whatsoever in any of the four VIP alternatives for the elimination or reduction of private vehicles operated by employees working in Yosemite Valley. A cost effective employee transportation program should be incorporated into the VIP.
1) What Alternative 2 Provides:
VIP Alternative 2 states,
"An orientation/transfer facility would be constructed in the west end of Yosemite Valley at a site called Taft Toe. The facility would serve as the staging area for a visit to Yosemite Valley, a place where visitors can learn about the Valley’s unique features, orient themselves to its sites, and embark on their journey by way of state-of-the-art shuttle buses, on foot, or bicycle."
"It is anticipated that visitors would arrive at the Taft Toe facility via the regional transportation system. In the event, however, that such a system has not been established upon completion of the orientation/transfer facility (scheduled to be no earlier than summer of 2001), visitors would leave their vehicles at an interim Taft Toe parking area and tour the Valley using a variety of options. As the regional system develops, the parking area would be phased out in proportion to the system’s growing capacity, with the goal of eventually eliminating all day- use visitor parking and restoring the site to its natural state."
"By committing to this course of action, the National Park Service could proceed with the removal of 2,300 parking spaces and several roads located in the east end of Yosemite Valley that have contributed to the decline of natural ecosystems. In addition, by capturing day-use vehicles at the west end of the Valley, traffic congestion, air pollution, and noise would be greatly reduced, enhancing the visitor experience."
It is evident from the comments made in Paragraph IV. C. of this issue paper, that without significant participation by the National Park Service in funding the development and operation of a regional transportation system, the development of a regional transportation system capable of transporting peak period day use visitors from remote parking facilities to Taft Toe is unlikely. Therefore construction of 1,920 parking spaces at Taft Toe is virtually guaranteed.
2) Peak Auto Parking and Shuttle Service Demand:
Even if a parking facility is developed at Taft Toe, a regional transportation system will be necessary to provide access for the number of day use visitors currently using Yosemite Valley facilities on peak days. As park use continues to increase with the increasing American population, this need will increase over time.
According to VIP Appendix D in 1992 7,000 vehicles entered the park on a peak day.
VIP Appendix D states that 6,300 cars left the valley on Northside Drive on a peak day.
VIP Appendix D also states that 77% of 4,000 one way trips into the valley will be made by day use visitors when the reductions in overnight accommodations called for in the Concession Services Plan and General Management Plan are implemented.
VIP Appendix D also states in Table D-1 that there are 10,530 day users riding in automobiles with an average party size of 2.9 persons per automobile.
Four estimates of the number of day use vehicles entering the valley can be made from the above information:
a) Day use demand = 77% of 4,000 = 3,080 day use vehicles,
b) Day use demand = 10,530/2.9 = 3,631 day use vehicles,
c) Day use demand = 77% of 6,300 = 4,851 day use vehicles or
d) Day use demand = 77% of 7,000 = 5,390 day use vehicles
Since the Appendix B of the Plan estimates day use visitor time in the park at between 4.2 and 5 hours, some turn over of spaces can be predicted. The percentage of spaces that would turn over during the day however is unknown. Assuming that 50% of the spaces turn over during a peak day, the demand for day use parking spaces on that peak day at the Taft Toe park and ride lot would be:
a) Day use demand = 3080/2 = 1,540 parking spaces,
b) Day use demand = 3631/2 = 1,816 parking spaces,
c) Day use demand = 4851/2 = 2,426 parking spaces or
d) Day use demand = 5390/2 = 2,695 parking spaces
If day visitor vehicle occupancy is 2.9 passengers as indicated in Appendix D, the
shuttle schedule must have the capacity to transport:
a) 3,080 day use vehicles X 2.9 = 8,932 daily passengers each way,
b) 3,631 day use vehicles X 2.9 = 10,530 daily passengers each way,
c) 4,851 day use vehicles X 2.9 = 14,068 daily passengers each way or
d) 5,390 day use vehicles X 2.9 = 15,631 daily passengers each way
The capacity and frequency calculations below assume that very large vehicles will be used in the shuttle fleet. If smaller vehicles are to be used, then more vehicles and more frequent headways will be required. It must be remembered that consistent with the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) all shuttle vehicles must be equipped with passenger lifts and tie down space for wheelchairs. Due to the nature of park visitation substantial baggage storage space must also be provided. A final vehicle specification must be completed prior to determining actual headways.
If each shuttle bus has a maximum carrying capacity (standing and seated) of 50 people, and each bus makes a round trip between Taft Toe and Yosemite Village twice per hour (ten minutes running time, with five minutes total per trip dwell time at terminal and intermediate stops), then each shuttle bus will carry a maximum of 100 day visitors per hour in a single direction (either to or from the village). Each bus would therefore carry a maximum of 400 riders in each direction during a four hour period.
Case I:
If 60% of those using the system leave the valley during the four hour peak afternoon period (Between 2:00 PM and 6:00 PM):
13.4 buses (8,932 passengers X .60/400) would be required for the low estimate, and 23.4 buses (15,631 passengers X .60/400) would be required for the high estimate.
With a 20% spare ratio for buses, between 17 and 29 buses would be required (peak demand fleet/.80 = total owned fleet).
Case II:
If 75% of those using the system leave the valley during the peak afternoon period (Between 2:00 PM and 6:00 PM):
16.7 buses (8,932 passengers X .75/400) would be required for the low estimate , and 29.3 buses (15,631 passengers X .75/400) would be required for the high estimate.
With a 20% spare ratio for buses, between 21 and 36 buses would be required (peak demand fleet/.80 total owned fleet).
Additional capacity would also be required to transport tour bus day use visitors if those passengers are required to transfer at Taft Toe. Although Alternative 2 provides for only twenty parking spaces for the Taft Toe site, Appendix D also states,
"In 1992 there were 13,313 bus tours , an increase of 1,144 trips per year or an average annual growth rate of 17.9%. Tour bus travel can be expected to continue increasing, driven by aging of the population, increased visitation by foreign travelers, and increased emphasis on alternative transportation modes."
Even if these 13,313 tour bus trips were spread evenly throughout the year, an average of 36 tour buses would enter Yosemite National Park and presumably Yosemite Valley each day. If each tour bus carried 50 people, an additional 1,800 round trips between Taft Toe and the East Valley could be expected. Assuming that 60% or 75% of these visitors also returned to Taft Toe during the four hour afternoon peak, these riders would require:
.60 X 1,800 riders/400 riders per bus during peak hours = 2.7 shuttle buses, or .75 X 1,800 riders/400 riders per bus during peak hours = 3.4 shuttle buses or considering a 20% spare ratio, between 4 and 5 additional shuttle buses owned.
3) Environmental and Economic Impacts:
The number of the shuttle buses operating during the peak periods from Taft Toe to the East Valley to meet primary transportation demand and the headways for this service are provided below:
Case 1:
Low estimate: 13.4 +2.7 = 16.1 ~ 16 shuttle buses operating two round trips per hour each, or 32 total round trips per hour which is equivalent to 1.9 minute headways in either direction.
A visitor on Southside Drive at a location between Taft Toe and Sentinel Bridge would observe a bus passing that location either east or west bound every 57 seconds.
High estimate: 23.4 +2.7 = 26.1 ~ 26 shuttle buses operating two round trips per hour each, or 52 total round trips per hour which is equivalent to 1.2 minute headways in either direction.
A visitor on Southside Drive at a location between Taft Toe and Sentinel Bridge would observe a bus passing that location either east or west bound every 36 seconds.
Case 2:
Low estimate: 16.7 + 3.4 = 20.1 ~20 shuttle buses operating two round trips per hour each, or 40 total round trips per hour which is equivalent to 1.5 minute headways in either direction.
A visitor on Southside Drive at a location between Taft Toe and Sentinel Bridge would observe a bus passing that location either east or west bound every 45 seconds.
High estimate: 29.3 +2.7 = 32 shuttle buses operating two round trips per hour each, or 64 total round trips per hour which is equivalent to .9 minute headways in either direction.
A visitor on Southside Drive at a location between Taft Toe and Sentinel Bridge would observe a bus passing that location either east or west bound every 27 seconds.
Assuming that large reliable electric buses are available and utilized in the Valley shuttle system, significant noise reduction over diesel buses would be achieved. The environmental advantage of running this system for the purpose of replacing private automobile primary transportation on the 2.9 mile section of Southside Drive between Taft Toe and the Yosemite Village is nonetheless questionable. The system will reduce only 2.9 single direction miles per private vehicle traveling between Taft Toe and the current parking areas in the Yosemite Village/Camp 6 area.
Although the shuttles will result in a reduction in private automobile traffic on Southside Drive, they do so by adding the environmental impact of large buses at very frequent headways. These headways approach those experienced by urban residents of Market Street in Downtown San Francisco. The construction of the 1920 private auto/20 bus space parking lot at Taft Toe will also have a significant adverse environmental impact in the west Yosemite Valley area.
The National Park Service will incur the economic cost of the construction of a new 1920 private auto/20 bus space parking lot at Taft Toe. All day use visitor parking is to be removed from east Yosemite Valley under VIP Alternative 2. The National Park Service will bear the economic burden of operating the shuttle system all year during both the peak and off peak periods every day. This includes periods of the year and/or day when operation of a frequent shuttle system is neither cost effective nor environmentally advantageous.
4) Social Impacts: Human Factors Considerations:
It is anticipated by VIP Alternative 2, that day use visitors will enter the Taft Toe area, select their parking place, orient themselves at the Taft Toe Information Center, and embark on their visit to Yosemite Valley by way of shuttle buses, on foot, or bicycle.
Between 3,080 and 5,390 day use vehicles and between 8,932 to 15,631 visitors must be processed through the Taft Toe facility on peak days. If 60% of these peak day visitors arrive at Taft Toe during the four hour period between 8:00 AM and noon, between 1,340 and 2,345 people must be processed per hour during this period. The experience for visitor families arriving at Taft Toe during peak hours with children, food, picnic supplies and spare clothing will be similar to the experience of airline travelers in major urban areas. There will be traffic congestion, long waiting lines, orientation problems, baggage handling problems, and related boarding and stowage difficulties. The experience of these visitors will be very urban in character due to the numbers of people to be processed through this facility during peak hours.
The actual bus ride from Taft Toe to the east Yosemite Valley during peak periods will be crowded and difficult. This will particularly be the case for passengers who board with significant baggage. Buses stopping at intermediate destinations will frequently be filled to capacity and unable to board additional passengers. Due to frequent headways, buses will stack at intermediate stops, and at the route terminals. Operating schedules could be adversely affected.
1) Potential adverse impacts on day use visitors
As identified in paragraph IV. B. above, reassigning all day use parking to Taft Toe could have a significant environmental impact on the Valley due to the requisite demand for the operation of a frequent headway shuttle system solely to replace private primary transportation vehicles.
The large number of people who will be processed through the Taft Toe Facility will adversely affect day visitor experience by creating densities on peak days which will be similar to densities encountered in inner-city urban environments.
The Yosemite Valley "family picnic" at sites other than Taft Toe will be rendered less feasible for many families who need to transport children, older family members or those with disabilities. Although an accessible transit shuttle system may meet the letter of the Americans With Disability Act, the logistics of moving children, elderly, and disabled family members and supporting picnic equipment via bus will prevent some families from visiting Yosemite Valley for this purpose.
No socioeconomic analysis of day use visitors is presented in the VIP. It is not possible to determine without such an analysis how many visitors will be affected by being forced out of their automobiles in the course of their primary trip to the Valley. The social impact of this change cannot therefore be determined from the plan documents.
2) Potential adverse impacts on communities in the affected region
The VIP concludes that the creation of the Taft Toe staging site and parking lot will improve the environment in Yosemite Valley. The VIP also states that no reduction in the number of visitors is expected,
The VIP concludes that there will be no adverse socioeconomic impact of the plan on the "affected region" surrounding the Park ("the gateway communities"). The VIP assumes that there will be a future growth in demand for access to the park by day visitors, and that those visitors who cease to come to the park because of implementation of the plan will be replaced by new visitors.
The above assertion may or not be true. No supporting documentation is provided related to the nature of the day use visitor and their tolerance for the type of changes envisioned by Alternative 2 or 3 of the VIP. We do not know from the VIP analysis whether there will be an adverse impact on a particular socioeconomic or ethnic group within the day use visitor population who will experience what the plan calls "negative responses to changes in park facilities and operations."
The VIP appears to make conflicting statements in regard to the plan's effect on day visitor patterns. It states:
"Visitors might respond to changes in park facilities and operations by altering their demand for park access, their spending behavior, their use patterns, and their length of stay. Changes in visitor spending patterns represent an important potential impact on the region’s economy. Yosemite visitor spending patterns could be affected by factors such as increased spending opportunities, changes in the visitor experience, and shifts in the visitor population if current visitors are displaced by others with different spending habits. No reductions in the number of visitors are expected because any negative responses to changes in park facilities and operations are expected to be offset by people who didn’t visit the park because of congestion and overcrowding in recent years."
The plan also states,
"Day excursion visitors are expected to be most discouraged from visiting Yosemite due to constraints on private vehicle access. Constraints on peak season day use access coupled with improvements to the park’s facilities and natural resources could increase visitation during the shoulder seasons, off-peak, and midweek. As visitation grows during the spring and fall and during midweek periods, total Yosemite visitation will continue to increase. This visitation growth would provide net economic gains to the region’s businesses that serve travelers and positive direct and secondary economic impacts"
Yet the VIP admits in its final words on this issue that the actual social and economic impacts of implementation of the plan have not been measured. It states,
"Many factors independent of this plan could influence future visitation to the park. As a result, it is not possible to quantify the specific impacts of the VIP alternatives on park visitation. However, differences in the proposed VIP alternatives can be expected to contribute to future visitation."
This issue paper argues that the urban level densities to be encountered at either the Taft Toe facility as planned in Alternative 2 or the Pohono Quarry facility as planned in Alternative 3 combined with the design of the Yosemite Valley shuttle system as proposed in VIP Alternatives 2 and 3 presents an artificial barrier to day visitor access to Yosemite Valley. Furthermore, design factors necessitated by the number of visitors that must be processed through the Taft Toe or Pohono facilities during peak hours will degrade visitor experience in return for only slight environmental improvement to the Valley's ecosystem achieved by reducing private vehicle miles between Taft Toe/Pohono Quarry and east Yosemite Valley. Artificial barriers to transportation by day use visitor families and their normal baggage created by Alternative 2 and 3 will likely have a significant impact on the nature of day use visitor, and could adversely affect specific socioeconomic and/or ethnic groups. This could alter spending patterns in Yosemite Valley and in the surrounding affected communities. These impacts have not been measured by the plan.
Day use visitors passing through the Taft Toe area in route to Yosemite Valley destinations are already carpooling with an average vehicle occupancy of 2.9 passengers per vehicle. This is an excellent ratio for private vehicle occupancy.
The total travel distance between Taft Toe and the Yosemite Village is only 2.9 miles. Use of the shuttle system for primary transportation between Taft Toe and Yosemite Village saves fuel and reduces pollution, but the savings results from the reduction of only one private vehicle mile per passenger. This will reduce fuel consumption and resulting pollution by an average of .05 gallons (less than one half of a pint) of gasoline per passenger transported. Even this small benefit will be reduced to some degree by the impact of operating the shuttle vehicles.
If all the parking for day use visitors is removed at Yosemite Village, Camp 6 and Curry Village, the shuttle system must be operated at some level during all hours and on all days that day visitors are permitted to use the park.
The decision to remove day use parking from the east Valley as proposed in the plan is an "all or nothing proposition." This "all or nothing proposition" will be implemented under VIP Alternatives 2 and 3 with or without the simultaneous implementation of a regional transit system, and without permitting time for evaluation of the effectiveness of the shuttle system. The expenditure of demolishing and relocating parking lots will be substantial. Once accomplished, no other options can be tested. The decision is irrevocable.
It is not clear what advantage transferring tour bus passengers at Taft Toe affords to the Valley environment. The only benefit of this provision is achieved by a slight reduction of noise and air pollution that may result from the operation of these tour buses for an additional 2.9 miles of Southside Drive in lieu of the operation of electric buses on the same road.
Tour bus operation represents access by private non-subsidized mass transit to Yosemite Valley for an average of 1,800 day use visitors per day. The environmental benefit of transferring these passengers to federally funded buses for a 2.9 mile trip does not appear to justify the federal cost of acquisition and operation of up to five additional buses.
V. The Flexible Transportation System
This section presents an alternative "Flexible Transportation System." This Flexible Transportation System (FTS) will permit cost effective and efficient management of the Yosemite transportation system during periods of low visitor use and during times of peak visitor use. The FTS will permit gradual progress toward accomplishment of the long term goals of the Yosemite General Plan to reduce or eliminate access by private vehicles to Yosemite Valley.
The FTS will implement a transportation systems management approach for Yosemite Valley designed to work toward the goals of the general plan, while maximizing the use of existing roads, parking lots, shuttle buses, private tour buses and car pooling in private automobiles and vans in a manner that promotes cost effective management of these resources.
The FTS will permit regulation of visitor travel mode by the National Park Service by season and time of day.
The FTS will immediately eliminate all secondary transportation in Yosemite Valley by overnight visitors, day use visitors and park employees during peak use times.
The FTS will immediately divert private single occupant employee commute trips (primary trips) into van pools and car pools, and when ridership warrants into employee commute shuttles .
The FTS will permit gradual progress toward the ultimate Yosemite General Plan goal of reducing or eliminating private automobile access to Yosemite Valley within the limits of financial resources available from the National Park Service, the surrounding communities and private tour bus operators.
The FTS includes the following elements:
Complete restructuring of Yosemite Valley day use parking.
A Valley wide visitor parking management program.
Expansion of the Valley shuttle system.
An excursion bus program that facilitates secondary transportation to park
destinations within Yosemite National Park but outside the Valley.
Federal participation in the development and operation of regional transportation
system services designed to decrease private automobile use to access Yosemite
Valley by park visitors and employees.
A commute program for employees working in Yosemite Valley
Yosemite Valley Parking will be completely restructured to permit parking only at three initial day use visitor destinations in Yosemite Valley. This parking will be provided at one of three Day Use Activity Centers, and will be preassigned. The restructured parking facilities will disburse day use visitor parking to decrease both automobile and visitor use impacts among the three Yosemite Valley Day Use Activity centers. The following actions are necessary:
1. The construction of a new "Day Use Activity Center A." including a visitor parking lot in the Taft Toe area. A picnic area will be constructed adjacent to the parking area. A visitor orientation facility will be constructed to provide visitor information and orientation, rest rooms, bicycle rentals, a shuttle bus waiting area with ADA compliant boarding area and visitor support services. Backcountry Wilderness permits will be issued at the Taft Toe Day Use Activity Center.
2. Yosemite Village will be designated as "Day Use Activity Center B." Day visitor parking in the Yosemite Village/Camp 6 area will be reorganized. A picnic area will be constructed adjacent to the parking area. Existing Village facilities currently provide or will be modified to provide visitor information and orientation, rest rooms, bicycle rentals, and visitor support services. The VIP Alternative 2 proposal to develop a new visitor/transit center in the Yosemite Village store building will work well with this redesigned parking facility. This Yosemite Village facility will serve as the ADA compliant transfer point between the two Valley shuttle routes, the regional transportation system, and all excursion and tour bus departures.
3. Curry Village will be designated as "Day Use Activity Center C." Day visitor Parking in the Curry Village Area will be reorganized. If dictated by environmental concerns, remaining day use visitor parking can be relocated from the orchard area to an alternative site in the Curry Village area. In this case it is suggested that the parking be located on the south side of Southside Drive to the west of the existing parking lot provided for overnight guests. This will permit diversion of private automobiles from the roadway before they reach Curry Village. A picnic area will be constructed adjacent to the parking area. Existing Curry Village facilities currently provide or will be modified to provide visitor information and orientation, rest rooms, bicycle rentals, a shuttle bus waiting area with ADA compliant boarding area and visitor support services.
4. Redesign of all park information and trail system information to give equal emphasis to:
Taft Toe "Day Use Activity Center A" as a center for picnicking, and the locus of all recreational activities in the Bridal Veil Falls, El Capitan and the west Valley area, and as the parking facility for backcountry hiking to South Rim destinations including Dewey Point and Taft Point via Old Inspiration Point and Stanford Point, and Glacier Point via the Four Mile Trail.
Yosemite Village "Day Use Activity Center B" as a center for picnicking, and the locus of all recreational activities in the Yosemite Falls, Yosemite Village, Ahwanee Falls, Royal Arches area, and as the parking facility for backcountry hiking to North Rim Destinations via Yosemite Falls and via Tenaya Canyon (Snow Creek Trail).
Curry Village "Day Use Activity Center C" as a center for picnicking, and the locus of all recreational activities in the Curry Village, Happy Isles (Vernal and Nevada Falls) and Mirror Lake areas, and as the origin point for backcountry hiking to backcountry destinations via the upper Merced Canyon.
5. Restrict all parking on Valley roadways. Ten minute parking by motorists who are in the immediate presence of their automobiles could be permitted at designated turn outs. No other parking would be permitted on Valley roadways.
6. Provide a total number of day use visitor parking spaces at Taft Toe, Yosemite Village and Curry Village Day Use Activity Centers equal to the number of spaces currently provided in all Valley developed areas and along Valley roads at present. Under the FTS alternative, all spaces removed from Yosemite Village, Curry Village, and along Valley roads will be replaced at the Taft Toe site, with the goal of providing an equal number of parking spaces at the three activity centers. VIP Alternative 2 states that 2,300 day use parking spaces are to be removed under that alternative. If this number is accurate, approximately 767 parking spaces would be provided at each of the three Day Visitor Activity Centers.
7. A parking lot would be constructed outside the park in the El Portal area for overflow Yosemite Valley day use parking. The site should be large enough to provide for peak day overflow parking, Yosemite Valley employee parking, and adequate additional capacity to permit the National Park Service to stage future reductions in the number of Yosemite Valley Parking spaces over time at the three Day Use Activity Centers. This would be accomplished by increasing the number of peak days on which the overflow lot would be used as the spaces are removed from the three activity centers. This would permit gradual movement toward the general plan goal of eliminating or reducing private automobile use in Yosemite Valley, without forcing the immediate operation of a remote shuttle program for day use visitors on a year around basis.
It is envisioned that development of a regional transportation system would further permit additional reductions in the number of day use visitor spaces provided at the three Valley Day Use Visitor Activity centers by transporting Yosemite Valley day use visitors from hotels and motels in the surrounding communities to Yosemite Valley.
A Valley Wide Visitor Parking Management Program will be established. This program can be used in conjunction with a seasonal day use reservation system. The parking management program will provide for the issuance of a dated parking sticker for one of the A, B or C activity centers to each day use visitor vehicle entering the valley. This sticker could be issued at the entrance station to the park or at a new valley kiosk to be located on Southside Drive east of the Pohono Bridge. Similar stickers will be provided to overnight visitors which will restrict Yosemite Valley parking to the parking lot at the location of their overnight accommodation for the duration of their stay in the Valley. The parking management program will be flexible. The parking management program will restrict parking to a single activity center during normal and peak use periods, but permit open or multiple site parking stickers during periods of low visitor use when the operation of frequent shuttle service is not warranted based upon cost effectiveness and environmental considerations.
Parking restrictions may be placed in service only on peak days, or only during the period of each day when day visitor use warrants the operation of a shuttle system. A sticker could for instance be issued for Day Use Activity Center A, but also permit parking at Day Use Activity Centers B and C after 6:00 PM. This flexibility will allow simultaneous management of the parking and shuttle systems to ensure cost effective operation of the Flexible Transportation System. The primary goal of the parking management program will be to permit primary transportation into the Valley by day use and overnight visitors while eliminating all secondary private automobile visitor trips during all hours of frequent shuttle operation. Elements of the program include:
1. Day use visitors entering Yosemite Valley will be issued a parking sticker to be displayed in their automobile window. The Sticker would be dated and bear the letter A, B, or C, and state any relevant time restrictions. Parking permits could be issued on an advanced reservation or first come first served basis. Attempt will be made to assign a parking space at the Day Use Activity Center relevant to the visitor's primary recreational purpose.
2. Upon entering the Valley the day use visitor would proceed via Southside Drive directly to their designated parking location at one of the three Day Use Activity Centers. All secondary transportation would be made from the primary Day use Activity Center by bicycle, shuttle bus, or on foot.
3. Day use visitors would be permitted to park only in the area (A, B or C) designated on the sticker issued to their vehicle. The visitor parking management program would ensure that the visitor used alternative forms of transportation (bicycles or shuttle buses) for all secondary trips, except during periods when frequent shuttle operation is not desirable.
4. If a day use reservation system is established, visitors wishing to reserve day use visitor parking, would prepay for this reservation, and receive a coupon. The coupon would be exchanged by the visitor for a parking sticker on the date reserved. Failure to exchange the coupon by a specified time would result in forfeiture of the day use reservation.
5. Parking enforcement will be required during all hours that parking restrictions are in effect.
6. When all Valley parking lots are filled, day use visitors would be diverted to the El Portal parking lot. Programmable visitor information signs will apprise day use visitors arriving from Mariposa, Groveland and Oakhurst to divert to the El Portal overflow lot on peak days if all Valley parking lots are full. This visitor information system would also be provided on park information radio frequencies.
7. Parking restrictions will also be imposed on overnight visitors. Overnight visitor parking stickers will be issued for the location of the overnight accommodation. Overnight visitor stickers will specify any relevant time restrictions, and therefore could permit use of other parking locations at times when operation of a frequent shuttle service is not desirable.
8. Back packers will be directed to park in a short term parking area at the Taft Toe "Day Use Activity Center A" while they obtain their wilderness permit. Yosemite Valley parking sticker for this group will be issued at the time of issuance of the wilderness permit. For all backpackers who begin their back country trip at Yosemite Valley trail heads, a properly dated parking sticker for the appropriate Valley Day Use Activity Center will be issued with the wilderness permit.
The current Yosemite Valley visitor shuttle system will be expanded to serve the new Taft Toe Activity Center. The expanded shuttle program would operate on the routes recommended in the Yosemite Transportation Study (VIP Appendix D). The primary goal of the shuttle will be to provide for all secondary transportation needs of both day use and overnight visitors. The shuttle will also provide secondary transportation for park employees, and will meet the general transportation needs of Yosemite Valley residents.
1. Route #1 will operate from the Taft Toe Day Use Activity Center to Yosemite Lodge/Yosemite Falls via Southside Drive, Sentinel Bridge and Yosemite Village, making a stop at Yosemite Village to transfer passengers to route #2.
2. Route #2 will operate from Happy Isles to the Curry Village Day Use Activity Center and along Southside Drive to the Ahwanee Hotel via Sentinel Bridge and Yosemite Village making a stop at Yosemite Village to transfer passengers to route #1.
3. Hours and frequency of shuttle operation will be coordinated with parking management decisions to insure that the level of shuttle service is consistent with visitor demand and sound transportation resource management.
4. In addition to day use visitors, the shuttle will provide for the in-valley secondary vehicular transportation needs of overnight visitors and park employees not traveling for work purposes in government or concessionaire vehicles.
5. All shuttle vehicles will be ADA compliant, and will be equipped with bicycle racks. Bicycle loading will be permitted only at the three activity centers and at the endpoints of each route (Yosemite Lodge, Ahwanee Hotel and Happy Isles).
Most overnight visitors who wish to access park destinations outside of the Valley currently use their private automobiles to access these destinations. Such destinations include, Glacier Point, Tuolumne Meadows, Wawona, the Mariposa Grove, the Tuolumne Grove and Badger Pass. The Badger Pass winter ski bus operated seasonally between Yosemite Lodge and Badger Pass has proven effective. Similar excursion buses would serve the purpose of transporting overnight visitors to other park locations without their automobiles. This will reduce secondary private automobile transportation within the Valley and the park as a whole for overnight visitors. An additional benefit of this service will be the transportation of backpackers and hikers to Yosemite Valley from trip end points at locations along Glacier Point Road and Tioga Pass Road. It is proposed that three excursion routes be operated between the Yosemite Village Day Use Activity Center and other park destinations along the following routes:
1. The Tuolumne Meadows Route will run between Yosemite Village "Day Use Activity Center B" and Tuolumne Meadows with intermediate stops at the Crane Flat, Tuolumne Grove, White Wolf, Tenaya Lake and various camp grounds and trail heads along Tioga Pass Road. During Winter Months this service could be operated only to the Tuolumne Grove if warranted.
2. The Wawona Route will run between the Yosemite Village "Day Use Visitor Activity Center B" and the Mariposa Grove via Wawona. This route could be diverted to Badger Pass during winter months.
3. The Glacier Point Route will run between the Yosemite Village Day Use Activity Center and Glacier Point. This route could be diverted to Badger pass during winter months.
4. The frequency of operation of the high country excursion service would be regulated by seasonal demand.
5. The "Yosemite High Country" excursion system will also reduce primary private vehicle transportation to Yosemite Valley by park visitors who use the system to make day trips from park campgrounds in the Yosemite high country into Yosemite Valley.
6. Consideration should be given to coordinating high country excursion service with the regional transportation system. Well designed routes and schedules could permit the extension of excursion service from Tuolumne Meadows to serve Lee Vining, and from the Mariposa Grove to serve Fish Camp and/or Oakhurst. Such extensions would make it possible for day use visitors staying in accommodations in Lee Vining, Fish Camp and Oakhurst to reach park destinations without their private automobiles. This would reduce primary trips by private auto to Yosemite Valley. Coordination of these services under a single operating contract could permit cost effective financial participation by the National Park Service in the YARTS transportation program.
This issue paper has stated earlier that the reliance of VIP Alternative 2 on a regional transportation system is unrealistic without active economic participation by the National Park Service in funding the regional transportation system . Although the other recommendations made in this issue paper will assist in reducing private automobile trips within Yosemite National Park, progress toward accomplishing the goal of the Yosemite General Plan to eliminate private vehicle access to Yosemite Valley over the long term will only occur if quality alternative visitor transportation to Yosemite National Park is established.
The Yosemite General Plan has established the development of a regional transit system as a national priority based upon the imperative to better manage the environmental and cultural resources of a national park of world wide significance. Significant federal participation in the development and operation of a regional transportation system should be incorporated into VIP.
It is recommended that the Flexible Transportation System include active financial and managerial involvement by the National Park System in the development and operation of a regional transportation system. It is proposed that the National Park Service recognize the value to the nation of accomplishing the goals of the Yosemite General Plan through financial participation in the mass transportation of area residents, those staying in overnight accommodations outside the park and day use visitors to Yosemite Valley.
At the same time it should be recognized by the affected local communities surrounding Yosemite National Park that continued and expanded visitation of Yosemite National Park is a direct economic benefit to those communities. Therefore an effective and equitable cost sharing formula or system for funding a regional transportation system should be developed. The YARTS group has received funding to study transportation alternatives for establishing a regional transportation system. The specific design of that system must wait for completion of the YARTS financial study.
The VIP should commit the National Park Service to active participation in establishing and operating the regional transportation system and significant financial participation in both. The following suggestions are made for coordination between the National Park Service and YARTS:
1. As recommended above, coordination of a "Yosemite High Country" excursion program with regional transportation service will permit cost effective management of both transportation systems.
2. As recommended below, coordination of a Yosemite employee shuttle program with regional transportation service will permit cost effective management of both transportation systems.
3. It has been recommended above that an overflow parking lot be established in El Portal to accommodate day visitor parking on peak use days, and that capacity of this lot be expanded over time as regional transit system ridership increases and as parking spaces at the three Yosemite Valley Day Use Visitor Activity Centers are decreased. The operation of shuttle services from the El Portal lot to Yosemite Valley is an appropriate National Park Service expense. Coordination of this service with the employee commute shuttles and with the regional transportation system will result in cost effective management of this service.
An employee commute program will be established for those Yosemite Valley employees who live outside the park. This program would consist of the following elements:
1. Expansion of the car pool/van pool program. Preferential parking for car and van pool vehicles will be provided. A net reduction in the number of employee parking spaces will be achieved through this program.
2. A employee shuttle route will be operated from the new El Portal parking lot to Valley commute destinations. Parking in this lot would also be provided for car and van pool passengers.
3. In areas where sufficient demand exists, additional regular employee shuttle routes will be established. The regional transportation system (RTS) established with funding from the National Park Service and local communities will provide transportation between parking facilities in outlying communities and the Yosemite Village Day Use Activity Center. This service will also transport employees to Yosemite Valley. Consideration should be given to coordinating employee transportation service with the regional transportation system. Well designed routes and schedules will make it possible for employees and day use visitors staying in accommodations in Mariposa, Mid Pines and El Portal to reach park destinations without their private automobiles. This will reduce primary trips by private automobile to Yosemite Valley. Coordination of these services under a single operating contract will permit cost effective participation by the National Park Service in the YARTS transportation program.
VI. Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations
Issue #1 Compliance with the Yosemite General PlanThe specific transportation solutions proposed in VIP Alternatives 1 and 4 will make virtually no progress in meeting General Plan goals to reduce traffic and congestion in Yosemite Valley. The specific transportation solutions proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 of the VIP could actually worsen Yosemite Valley traffic congestion, and could in the long term inhibit the enjoyment of the natural and scenic qualities of Yosemite.
Recommendation:
Substitute the "Flexible Transportation System" (FTS) recommendations made in this issue paper for the parking and transit recommendations made in VIP Alternative 2. The FTS will permit cost effective and efficient management of the Yosemite Transportation System during periods of both low visitor and peak visitor use. The FTS will permit gradual progress toward accomplishment of the long term goals of the Yosemite General Plan to reduce or eliminate access by private vehicles to Yosemite Valley.
Issue #2: Participation in a regional transportation systemThe Yosemite General Plan has established the development of a regional transit system as a national priority based upon the imperative to better manage the environmental and cultural resources of a national park of world wide significance. No provisions are made whatsoever in any of the four VIP alternatives for federal participation in a regional transportation system or for the elimination or reduction of commute trips made in vehicles operated by employees working in Yosemite Valley.
Recommendation : The VIP should commit the National Park Service to active participation in establishing and operating the regional transportation system and significant financial participation in both.
Issue #3 Potential unmitigated environmental, social and economic impactsThe specific transportation solutions proposed in VIP Alternatives 2 and 3 could have unmitigated adverse environmental, social and economic impacts not only upon Yosemite Valley, but upon the communities surrounding Yosemite National Park.
Recommendation:
Adopt the Flexible Transportation System recommendations proposed in this issue paper which restructure Valley parking facilities to disburse day use visitor parking among three Day Use Activity Centers, and establish an El Portal overflow parking lot. These actions will disburse both automobile and visitor use impacts among the three Yosemite Valley activity centers and ensure that the nature and number of day use visitors is not altered to the economic disadvantage of the affected local communities.
Disbursal of parking and picnicking to three primary activity centers will also reduce human density and the impact of human activity throughout the Valley. This will facilitate a reduction in visitor use impact at Yosemite Village/Yosemite Falls and Curry Village/Happy Isles areas by diverting visitation to the west Yosemite Valley.
Issue #4 Impact on the nature of day useThe urban density and transfer problems to be encountered at the Taft Toe facility as it is proposed in VIP Alternative 2 present artificial barriers to day visitor access to Yosemite Valley. Furthermore, design factors necessitated by the number of visitors that must be processed through the Taft Toe facility during peak hours will degrade visitor experience in return for only slight environmental improvement to the Valley's ecosystem achieved by reducing private vehicle miles between Taft Toe and east Yosemite Valley. The artificial barrier to transportation of visitors and their normal baggage created by VIP Alternatives 2 and 3 will likely have a significant impact on the nature of day use visitor, and could adversely affect specific socioeconomic and/or ethnic groups. This could alter spending patterns in Yosemite Valley and in the surrounding affected communities. These impacts have not been measured by the plan.
Recommendation:
Adopt the Flexible Transportation System recommendations proposed in this issue paper which call for complete restructuring of Yosemite Valley parking, and designate three Day Use Activity Centers at Taft Toe, Yosemite Village, and Curry Village. This action will permit equal access to desirable Valley areas for all park visitors regardless of whether the duration of their visit is one day or overnight, thereby eliminating the possibility of setting parking policies that penalize specific socioeconomic or ethnic groups.
Issue #5 Cost efficiency of Valley shuttle systemImmediate elimination of all day use visitor parking in the Yosemite Village/Curry Village areas will force all year operation of a shuttle system which must be in operation during all hours of day visitor use. This will be inefficient and will ineffectively allocate federal resources in return for questionable environmental benefit.
Recommendation:
Implement a flexible "Transportation Systems Management" approach for Yosemite Valley designed to work toward the goals of the general plan while maximizing the use of existing roads, parking lots, shuttle buses, private tour buses and car pooling in private automobiles and vans in a manner that promotes cost effective management of these resources.
This approach would incorporate a flexible parking management program and a coordinated visitor shuttle system . The parking management program would restrict parking to a single activity center during normal and/or peak use periods, but permit open or multiple site parking stickers during periods of low visitor use when the operation of frequent shuttle service is not warranted based upon cost effectiveness and environmental considerations. This flexibility will allow simultaneous management of the parking and shuttle systems to ensure cost effective operation of the Flexible Transportation System.
Issue #6: Failure of transportation measures to complement environmental and cultural improvementsThe Yosemite Valley Improvement Plan includes many of proposals that will meet Yosemite General Plan and National Park Service goals and objectives. The transportation components of all of the VIP alternatives however fail to adequately complement the recommended measures to improve management of the natural and cultural resources of the Valley.
Recommendation:
Adopt Flexible Transportation solutions which permit gradual movement toward the goals adopted inn the Yosemite General Plan. These recommendations include coordination between the Yosemite Valley parking management program, the Yosemite Valley visitor shuttle system, the "High Country" excursion system and an adequately funded regional transportation system to gradually reduce the number of Valley day visitor parking spaces over time as the level of alternative transportation increases.
Issue #7 Employee TransportationThere are no provisions in the proposed VIP alternative for reducing private automobile primary transportation commute trips by Yosemite Valley employees.
Recommendation:
A cost effective employee transportation program should be incorporated into the VIP.
Links to Other Resources Related to The Yosemite National Park Valley Improvement Plan
Back To The Top
All text and images on this page are copyrighted. Copyright by © by Scott Galloway 2000. All rights are reserved. 1/10/00