Grand Canyon National Park: Assessment of Transportation Alternatives

Abstract

Continuing traffic growth on roadways in the Grand Canyon National Park is a significant problem, detracting from the park as a natural, scenic environment and generating unacceptable levels of noise, air pollution, and congestion. A 1995 General Management Plan for the park identified transportation as the most significant issue affecting preservation of the park’s unique natural resources. In FY 1999, the U.S. Congress directed FTA and FHWA to undertake a review of the transportation alternatives considered by the National Park Service for the Grand Canyon. These alternatives included light rail, standard bus, articulated bus, and articulated bus on busway. The review concluded that transit is an appropriate solution to the transportation problems in the popular South Rim area of the Grand Canyon because of the concentration of visitors at a small number of destinations requiring motor-vehicle access and the viability of walking and bicycling as modes of transportation within the park that can complement transit service. Light-rail service, which is the preferred alternative identified by the National Park Service, has the advantage compared with bus service that it can accommodate high levels of peak-hour, peak-season demand. Although the lowest-cost alternative considered is articulated bus operated on a busway, the costs of several light-rail and bus alternatives are not substantially higher. The use of transit services by park visitors will result in substantial environmental benefits, reducing vehicular emissions and noise dramatically through a major reduction in the use of private vehicles.

Negative impact of traffic noise on avian reproductive success

“…Mitigation measures to reduce the negative impact of noise on breeding birds could include sound barriers (Slabbekoorn & Ripmeester 2008), alternative, more sound‐efficient transport by buses through nature reserves (Laube & Stout 2000) or closing roads during acoustically critical phases in the breeding cycle (Groot Bruinderink et al. 2002).…”

Estimating visitors’ travel mode choices along the Bear Lake Road in Rocky Mountain National Park

“…For example, freedom and access (i.e., the ability to go where you want when you want) has been found to be an important factor that influences park visitors' perception of transportation mode. In particular, short wait times (i.e., maximum of 15-25 min) for shuttle bus service has been found to be an important incentive for visitors to use shuttle service (Eaton and Holding, 1996;Holly et al, 2010;Laube and Stout, 2000;Lumsdon, 2006). However, visitors with children and/or equipment tend to use personal vehicles instead of shuttle bus service because of the freedom and access provided by personal vehicles (White, 2007;Youngs et al, 2008).…”

“…Other factors identified by previous research that affect shuttle bus ridership include cost for service Morgan, 1985;Shiftan et al, 2006;Sims et al, 2005), bus comfort (Laube and Stout, 2000), parking difficulties (White, 2007;Youngs et al, 2008), extent of bus route coverages (Holly et al, 2010), vehicle traffic congestion Park Studies Laboratory, 2002), and mandatory road closures to personal vehicles (Holding and Kreutner, 1998;Jensen, 1999;Regnerus et al, 2007). Additionally, the influence of environmental values associated with using alternative transportation has been examined but has been found to be a secondary benefit and not a primary reason park visitors use shuttle bus service (Holly et al, 2010;White, 2007).…”

Using vehicle monitoring technology and eco-driver training to reduce fuel use and emissions in tourism: a ski resort case study

“…Since the majority of this energy is derived from fossil fuels, energy use within the tourism sector is linked to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These emissions are not only altering global climate, but also a significant cause of diminished local air quality, and are compromising the visitor experience at a number of tourism destinations (G€ ossling, 2002;Holden, 2000;Kelly & Williams, 2007;Laube & Stout, 2000;Martin-Cejas & Sanchez, 2010).…”