Zion NP South Gate Operations Analysis April 2013

Zion National Park South Entrance Gate

Traffic Simulation and Analysis

Prepared for:

Zion National Park

April 2013

Project Number UT12-950


April 2013

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................................1

ASSUMPTIONS & METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................3

Study Area ..............................................................................................................................................................................3

Analysis Methodology .......................................................................................................................................................3

Traffic Volumes .....................................................................................................................................................................4

Transaction types.................................................................................................................................................................6

Vehicle Composition ..........................................................................................................................................................8

Calibration and Validation............................................................................................................................................. 11

SCENARIO EVALUATION –“GROWTH: NO BUILD”.................................................................................14

Assumptions ....................................................................................................................................................................... 14

Summary of Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 15

Appendices

Appendix A: Analysis of Operation of South Entrance Station at Zion National Park (2012)


April 2013

List of Figures

Figure 1 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Conditions .................................................................................................................5

Figure 2 Vehicle Queue Validation Results ...................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 3 Vehicle Queue Summary – Growth Scenarios............................................................................................... 15

List of Tables

Table 1 Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria................................................................................................................4

Table 2 Transaction Types and Average Service Times................................................................................................7

Table 3 Consolidated Transaction Types ...........................................................................................................................8

Table 4 Vehicle Composition Assumptions.................................................................................................................... 10

Table 5 Traffic Operations Summary – Existing Conditions (10-11 am)............................................................. 13

Table 6 Traffic Operations Summary – Design Day (10-11 am) Growth: No-Build........................................ 16


April 2013

1

INTRODUCTION

This document summarizes the preparation and application of a micro-simulation traffic model that

represents current vehicle operations at the South Entrance Station at Zion National Park (Entrance

Station). The traffic simulation model was developed specifically to evaluate how different Entrance

Station configurations and operational strategies might reduce vehicle congestion and delay.

Much of the data and assumptions applied to this effort are based on a report titled Analysis of Operation

of South Entrance Station at Zion National Park (August 17, 2012), which was prepared for Zion National

Park by Jonathan Upchurch. This document reiterates key information as needed; however, the reader is

encouraged to reference the full document for more detail. Intersection traffic volumes and pedestrian

counts were observed on July 7, 2012 and summarized by Tyler Hoskins, Southwest Consulting Services.


April 2013

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Visitors to Zion National Park are experiencing high levels of delay and queuing during peak operating

times. Queues have been observed to extend 1,100’ back from the entrance (July 7, 2012) and have been

reported to be much longer on busier days, even extending back to Lion Boulevard which is 3,350’ from

the entrance station.

A micro-simulation model was developed and calibrated to match the conditions observed on July 7,

2012. This model was then used to estimate vehicle operations for the 13th

busiest day at the park under

near-term and long-term growth scenarios. The modeling predicts that if no modifications are made to

the entrance station, delays will grow up to 300% in the future, resulting in queues that extend back over

4,500’ (over 1,000’ longer than currently observed on the busiest days). These delays will limit the ability

of users to access the park during peak operating hours.


April 2013

3

ASSUMPTIONS & METHODOLOGY

This section documents key assumptions, data sources, and analysis methods used for the Entrance

Station evaluation.

STUDY AREA

The study area is focused on the Entrance Station, including roadway segments on State Road 9

extending north and south a sufficient distance to measure vehicle queues. Also included is the Visitor

Center Access Road, which is immediately north of the Entrance Station; this road is used to access the

Park Visitor Center, parking areas, and camping area. The primary points of interest are:

1. Entrance Station

2. SR-9/ Visitor Center Access Road (3-way intersection)

3. Visitor Center Access Road/ Overflow Lot (4-way intersection)

4. Visitor Center Access Road/ Visitor Center Parking Area (3-way intersection)

ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

Traffic conditions were estimated using VISSIM micro-simulation traffic analysis software. VISSIM

simulates the behavior of individual vehicles and estimates delay/queuing due to traffic control devices or

in this instance, the Entrance Station transactions. VISSIM features specific functionality that represents

the categorical transaction types at the Entrance Station.

Traffic conditions are reported in terms of level of service (LOS) and vehicle delay. LOS is a term that

describes the operating performance of an intersection or road. Level of service is measured on a scale

from A to F, with LOS A representing the best conditions (free-flowing traffic and insignificant delays) and

LOS F the worst conditions (extremely congested traffic and excessive delays). Table 1 below describes

each LOS letter designation. For intersections without traffic signals, the level of service is reported based

on the approach with the worst delay. The LOS definition is only applicable at the unsignalized

intersections on the access road. The entrance station’s operational performance will only be described as

a function of average delay experienced at the station.


April 2013

4

TABLE 1 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS CRITERIA

Level of Service Description Delay in Seconds

A Usually no conflicting traffic < 10

B Occasionally some delay due to conflicting traffic > 10 to 15

C Delay noticeable, but not inconveniencing > 15 to 25

DDelay noticeable and irritating, increased likelihood of risk

taking> 25 to 35

E Delay approaches tolerance level, risk taking behavior likely > 35 to 50

F Delay exceeds tolerance level, high likelihood of risk taking > 50

Source: Highway Capacity Manual (2010).

TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Detailed traffic data was collected on Saturday, July 7, 2012, including turning movement counts at five

locations and queues lengths at the Entrance Station. Transaction service times at the Entrance Station

were collected on July 11, 2012. Based on northbound vehicle arrivals at the Entrance Station and

maximum observed queue lengths, the time period between 10:00 AM and 11:00 AM was determined to

be the peak period. This micro-simulation traffic model simulates traffic conditions between 10:00 AM and

12:00 PM to include the subsequent hour when the vehicle queue at the Entrance Station was reported to

decrease. Figure 1 illustrates traffic volumes at the Entrance Station and study area intersections during

the peak hour from 10:00 AM to 11:00 AM.

SR-9

ENTR

AN

CEST

ATIO

N

SR-9

ENTR

AN

CEST

ATIO

N

long

est q

ueue

leng

th a

t pea

k ho

ur

SHU

TTLE

LO

OP

SHU

TTLE

LO

OP

OVE

RFLO

W P

ARK

ING

AC

CESS

OVE

RFLO

W P

ARK

ING

AC

CESS

VISI

TORS

CEN

TER

DRI

VEW

AYVI

SITO

RS C

ENTE

R D

RIVE

WAY

1

2

3

4

dem

and

capa

city

254

223

*Ave

rage

del

ay

= 7.

4 m

in.

*Ave

rage

del

ay

= 7.

4 m

in.

Figu

re 1

Exi

stin

g Pe

ak H

our T

raffi

c Co

nditi

ons

95 88

119 12

0

8 5

13

54

13711

5245

2774

29 6

10137

75 6

ZIO

N N

ATIO

NAL

PAR

K SO

UTH

EN

TRAN

CE S

TATI

ON

long

est q

ueue

leng

th a

t pea

k ho

ur


April 2013

6

TRANSACTION TYPES

Vehicles passing through the Zion South Entrance Station have been categorized according to type of

transaction, which vary in terms of duration. This information was used to determine the distribution of

transaction types across the general traffic composition. Table 2 summarizes the observed transaction

types from July 11, 2012. One of the most common transaction types is the purchase of a seven day pass

to the park. Sub-categories also define payment method, which tends to influence transaction times.

Vehicles that enter the park with a previously acquired credential are one of the shortest transaction

times.

To simplify the analysis and simulation methods, similar transaction types were aggregated into eight

“transaction groups,” as shown in Table 3. Average service time and standard deviation in service time for

the transaction groups are weighted averages of the original transaction types. The percent of

transactions reflect annual transactions, however the distribution of transaction types observed during

July 11, 2012 is very similar. The total sums to less than one hundred percent because there were a few

miscellaneous transaction types left out that are uncommon and not typical for this analysis. The

simulation model automatically scales up the proportions to sum to one hundred percent.

As the traffic simulation model was developed to represent conditions observed on July 7, 2012 it was

assumed that the distribution of traffic in each transaction group was likely different on July 7 when

compared to the data gathered on July 11 and the average annual distribution. As July 7 was on a

weekend following a holiday (July 4), it would be likely that there would have been more vehicles with

prior credentials (having already purchased their 7-day and annual passes). This updated composition is

reported in Table 3 as the assumed percent of transactions (July 7th). This assumption was developed to

replicate the observed conditions (volume throughput at the gate and queue length) from July 7th

.


April 2013

7

TABLE 2 TRANSACTION TYPES AND AVERAGE SERVICE TIMES

Transaction

GroupCode Short Description

Average

Service Time

(s)

Standard

Deviation in

Service Time

(s)

Percent of

Transactions

(Annually)

Purchase/ Initial Acquisition/ Exchange of Pass

11230 Auto 7-day pass - cash 40 22 14.1%

1231 Auto 7-day pass - credit 45 17 5.4%

23930, 3931,

4000- 4312Commercial tour buses 67 8 0.3%

3

30 Interagency Access Pass 90 51 0.2%

11 Interagency Annual Pass - credit 91 22 2.9%

10 Interagency Annual Pass - cash 94 38 1.4%

2410 Annual Zion Pass - cash 96 6 0.1%

4 1303-1304 Tunnel Escort - credit or cash 97 47 2.0%

521 Interagency Senior Pass - credit 113 0 0.3%

20 Interagency Senior Pass - cash 122 41 1.7%

Entry on Previously Acquired Credentials

6

9370 Same Day Return 4 1 1.9%

9200 Fee Waiver Group 5 - 0.1%

9300 Local Stickers 5 6 2.1%

9360 Return Visit 7 5 14.1%

9753 Interagency VIP Pass 7 2 0.1%

9260 Re-entry - Zion Annual Pass 11 6 1.2%

7

9750 Interagency Annual Pass 22 17 25.9%

9751 Interagency Senior Pass 24 18 17.1%

9752 Interagency Access Pass 27 18 1.7%

8 9280 Park or Concession Employee 7 5 3.6%

Total 96.1%

Source: Jonathan Upchurch, summarized by Fehr & Peers, 2013.


April 2013

8

TABLE 3 CONSOLIDATED TRANSACTION TYPES

Transaction

Group

Short

Description

Average Service Time

(s)

Standard

Deviation in

Service Time (s)

Percent of

Transactions

(Annually)

Assumed Percent

of Transactions

(July 7, 2012)

1Purchase 7-

day pass41.1 21 19.2% 5.2%

2Commercial

tour buses67.0 8 0.3% 0.3%

3Purchase

annual pass92.3 28 4.7% 2.2%

4Tunnel

escort97.0 47 2.0% 2.0%

5Purchase

senior pass121.1 41 2.0% 2.0%

6Re-entry,

local7.1 5 19.5% 33.5%

7Use season

pass22.7 17 44.8% 47.3%

8

Park or

Concession

Employee

7.0 5 3.6% 3.6%

Total 96.1% 96.1%

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013.

VEHICLE COMPOSITION

Vehicle composition describes the character of vehicle flow in terms of the types of vehicles. The standard

classification scheme used by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) defines categories based on

whether the vehicle carries passengers or commodities, and also defines several sub-categories. For the

purposes of this study, the vehicle categories were consolidated into four groups:

1. cars and light duty vehicles,

2. motorcycles,

3. recreational vehicles (RVs) and tractor-trailer heavy duty vehicles,

4. and buses (including shuttle).


April 2013

9

Consolidating vehicle classes was appropriate because the nuances of vehicle types are not critical,

especially considering that cars or light duty vehicles (e.g. SUVs) represent the vast majority of all traffic. It

was assumed that vehicle composition is consistent throughout the analysis area.

Vehicle classification was measured over a 24-hour period using pneumatic tube vehicle counting devices

on SR-9 and near the Visitor Center overflow parking lot; this data was used to inform the assumptions in

the simulation model.

Vehicle composition varies within each transaction group. For example, transaction group 2 (Commercial

tour buses) was assumed to consist of only buses. Transaction group 4 (tunnel escort) was assumed to

consist of RVs and buses. Transaction group 8 (Park or concession employee) was assumed to consist of

only cars/light duty vehicles. The remaining vehicles, as measured by the pneumatic tubes, were then

distributed equally over the remaining transaction groups. Table 4 shows the total vehicle composition,

the resulting vehicle composition within each transaction group and the total vehicle composition cross

classified by transaction group.


April 2013

10

TABLE 4 VEHICLE COMPOSITION ASSUMPTIONS

Transaction

Group

Cars/ Light Duty

VehicleMotorcycle

RV/ Heavy Duty

VehicleBus Total

Total Vehicle Composition1

All 90.8% 2.0% 6.1% 1.1% 100.0%

Vehicle Composition for Each Transaction Group2

1 91.8% 2.1% 6.1% - 100.0%

2 - - - 100.0% 100.0%

3 91.8% 2.1% 6.1% - 100.0%

4 84.6% 15.4% 100.0%

5 91.8% 2.1% 6.1% - 100.0%

6 91.8% 2.1% 6.1% - 100.0%

7 91.8% 2.1% 6.1% - 100.0%

8 100% - - - 100.0%

Total Vehicle Composition Classified by Transaction Group3

1 17.7% 0.4% 1.2% - 19.2%

2 - - - 0.3% 0.3%

3 4.3% 0.1% 0.3% - 4.7%

4 0.0% - 1.7% 0.3% 2.0%

5 1.8% - 0.1% - 2.0%

6 17.9% 0.4% 1.2% - 19.5%

7 41.1% 0.9% 2.7% - 44.8%

8 3.6% - - - 3.6%

Total 96.1%

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013.1 Weighted average of two count locations.2

Based on vehicle classification data.3 Based on vehicle classification data and distribution of transaction types


April 2013

11

CALIBRATION AND VALIDATION

In the context of a traffic micro-simulation model, “calibration” refers to a process of adjusting model

parameters to achieve an expected result (i.e. match observed conditions). The model is said to be

“validated” when the results match the observed conditions. Once the model is able to accurately

represent an observed condition, it can be used to analyze scenarios with different traffic or geometric

conditions. This section discusses how the model was calibrated and validated based on two primary

criteria: vehicle throughput and vehicle queue lengths at the Entrance Station.

VEHICLE THROUGHPUT

Vehicle throughput is synonymous with “capacity” – it refers to the number of vehicles that go through

the Entrance Station, measured on an hourly basis. This measurement is critical for the evaluation of

Entrance Station alternatives. The Entrance Station Study1

indicates that the vehicle throughput of the

Entrance Station is 194 vehicles per hour (VPH), and notes that this value can vary depending on a

number of circumstances that vary from day to day, including vehicle composition, transaction mix,

staffing, and vehicle queue length. On July 11, 2012 vehicle throughput was measured as 230 to 240 VPH

during the peak hours (10:00 AM – 12:00 PM).

A VISSIM model (Model A) was developed with the following assumptions:

Traffic counts as measured on July 7, 2012

The transaction groups service time as reported in Table 3

The annual transaction group distribution as reported in Table 3

The vehicle compositions as reported in Table 4

This model yields a vehicle throughput of roughly 195 vph, which represents 85% of the capacity that was

measured at the gate on July 7, 2012. However, this value replicates the throughput at the entrance

station on a typical day as reported in the Entrance Station Study1.

As described in the “transaction groups” section above, July 7th was a weekend following a holiday (July

4th). It is assumed that more vehicles were likely to have already purchased a 7-day or annual pass,

making the vehicle composition atypical. The assumed distribution for July 7th as reported in Table 3 was

used to develop a VISSIM model (Model B) that was calibrated to match existing conditions. This model

yields a throughput of roughly 226 vph, which is 98% of the observed throughput. This is within

1Analysis of Operation of South Entrance Station at Zion National Park, 2012, p. 15-16.


April 2013

12

recommended calibration targets as reported by the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Traffic

Analysis Toolbox, Volume 3: Guidelines for Applying Traffic Microsimulation Modeling Software (July

2004).

OBSERVED VEHICLE QUEUES

Vehicle queuing from the Entrance Station is an important validation parameter, and also a key indicator

about the successfulness of alternative Entrance Station operations. Figure 2 presents the vehicle queue

lengths as observed on July 7, 2012, and those estimated using Model A and Model B.

Figure 2 Vehicle Queue Validation Results

Model A (195 VPH Entrance Station throughput) estimates vehicle queues that reach 2,200 feet, which is

excessive compared to the observed maximum queue of 1,100 feet. Model A suggests vehicle queues

begin to “recover” after peaking near 11:00 AM, however the queue at the 12:00 PM is still 1,000 feet. It

was determined that this model does not meet validation targets.

Model B (225 VPH Entrance Station throughput) closely resembles the observed vehicle queues. The

longest queue extends to 1,050 feet and then recovers to less than 200 feet at the end of the simulation

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

2000

2250

2500

Ve

hic

leQ

ueu

eLe

ngt

h(f

t)

Time of Day (AM)

Model A Model B Observed (7/7/12)


April 2013

13

period. Based on these results, Model B was determined to satisfactorily match the observed queue

length.

EXISTING CONDITIONS RESULTS

Since Model B was calibrated and validated to match the observed conditions on July 7th

, it was used to

evaluate existing conditions at the study intersections as reported in Table 5 below.

TABLE 5 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS SUMMARY – EXISTING CONDITIONS (10-11 AM)

ID Location ControlWorst

Movement

Delay

(sec/veh)LOS

1 Entrance Station NB Stop NB 405 N/A

2 SR-9/ VC Access Road WB Stop WB1

7 A

3 VC Access Road/ Overflow Lot EB/WB Stop WB2 5 A

4 VC Access Road/ Visitor Center EB Stop EB 7 A

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013.1 From Visitor Center Access Road to SR-92 From Overflow Parking to Visitor Center Access Road

While the Entrance Station is not a standard intersection, the delay is meaningful – drivers wait on average

405 seconds (6.8 minutes) to get through. This value represents the average delay over the peak 15-

minute period at the gate. Individual vehicle delays may be larger. The other three intersections beyond

the Entrance Station operate at LOS A, suggesting that the delay experienced at these intersections is

within acceptable limits.


April 2013

14

SCENARIO EVALUATION –“GROWTH: NO BUILD”

With the calibrated micro-simulation model, it is possible to analyze future scenarios with reasonable

confidence that results are realistic. The scenarios outlined below represent near-term and long-term

growth models without any project improvements in place.

ASSUMPTIONS

The project team (including Park staff) defined the near-term growth conditions based on the following

assumptions:

1) It is assumed that the annual average transaction data (as reported in Table 3) is used (i.e. Model

A is the base for future conditions) as it represents typical operations at the gate.

2) The “design day” is not the busiest day of the year, since it is not economical to build facilities

that would be oversized the majority of the time. Rather, the “design day” was established to be

the 13th highest traffic day of the year. The traffic data collected on July 7, 2012 was increased by

a factor of 1.028 to represent the 13th

highest traffic day.

3) Near-term growth was defined as some point in the future at which time annual visitation is 5

percent higher than today. It is assumed that at a 5 percent increase in annual visitation equates

to a 5 percent increase in both 24-hour traffic volumes and peak hour traffic volumes. Thus, the

traffic volumes were increased by a factor of 1.05 to represent future growth (after being

adjusted to represent the 13th highest traffic day).

4) Long-term growth was defined as some point in the future at which time annual visitation is 20

percent higher than today. It is assumed that at a 20 percent increase in annual visitation equates

to a 20 percent increase in both 24-hour traffic volumes and peak hour traffic volumes. Thus, the

traffic volumes were increased by a factor of 1.2 to represent future growth (after being adjusted

to represent the 13th

highest traffic day).


April 2013

15

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

This section summarizes traffic operations for the near-term and long-term growth scenarios. Figure 4

presents the vehicle queue lengths estimated at the Entrance Station for this condition; the existing

conditions observed vehicle queue lengths are provided for comparison.

Figure 3 Vehicle Queue Summary – Growth Scenarios

As shown in Figure 4, the near-growth model results in a queue that is 2,750’ long and long-term model

results in a queue that is 4750’ long. Further, both scenarios have queues that do not clear by the end of

the two-hour period. As a comparison, queues have currently been observed to extend to Lion Boulevard

on the busiest days of the year. This is a distance of 3,350’ feet from the entrance station. The long-term

model projects that the queue on the 13th

busiest day of the year will exceed the longest queues currently

observed by over 1,000’.

Table 6 presents the intersection delay and level of service for each study location for the growth

scenarios. Delay at the Entrance Station increases significantly, while traffic operations at intersections

0250500750

10001250150017502000225025002750300032503500375040004250450047505000

Ve

hic

leQ

ue

ue

Len

gth

(ft)

Time of Day (AM)

Near-Term Long-Term Observed (7/7/12)


April 2013

16

beyond the Entrance Station remain acceptable. Because the Entrance Station effectively limits vehicles

entering the Visitor Center area, there is not a dramatic change in vehicle delay due to increased visitation

demand.

TABLE 6 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS SUMMARY – DESIGN DAY (10-11 AM) GROWTH: NO-BUILD

ID Location ControlWorst

Movement

Near-Term Growth Long-Term Growth

Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS

1Entrance

StationGate NB 935 N/A 1,253 N/A

2SR-9/ VC

Access RoadWB Stop WB

15 A 7 A

3

VC Access

Road/

Overflow Lot

EB/WB

StopWB

26 A 7 A

4VC Access

Road/ Visitor

Center

EB Stop EB 7 A 8 A

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013.1

From Visitor Center Access Road to SR-92 From Overflow Parking to Visitor Center Access Road

The modeling predicts that delay park visitors experience at the South Entrance Station will increase 225%

in the near-term and 300% in the long-term if no improvements or modifications are made. These delays

represent the average delay experienced by a driver over the peak 15-minutes experienced at the gate.

Individual vehicle delays may be larger.

Project Title

Month Year

17

APPENDIX A: ANALYSIS OF OPERATION OF SOUTH ENTRANCE

STATION AT ZION NATIONAL PARK (2012)

ANALYSIS OF OPERATION OF SOUTH ENTRANCE STATION

AT ZION NATIONAL PARK

Prepared for Zion National Park By Jonathan Upchurch, P.E., P.T.O.E., Ph.D. August 17, 2012

ii

DISCLAIMER The contents of this report represent the findings and opinions of the author and not necessarily those of the National Park Service or Zion National Park.

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This comprehensive report presents information on the operation of the South Entrance Station at Zion National Park. Included is information on existing conditions and current operating characteristics, traffic volumes, capacity of the entrance station, queue lengths and waiting times, and strategies to facilitate the processing of vehicles. The findings of this report will assist Zion National Park in the management of the South Entrance Station and in decision-making on future strategies to reduce congestion. In the twelve months of 2011, 468,860 vehicles passed through the South Entrance during the hours that the Entrance Station was in operation. The “peak season” begins in mid-March and visitation remains high (with the exception of the end of August) until mid-October. Apparent spikes in visitation are associated with the days surrounding Easter, Memorial Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, and the Christmas / New Year’s period. The highest volume day in 2011 was Monday, May 30, 2011 (Memorial Day) when about 3,056 vehicles passed through the South Entrance Station. During the “peak season” and other selected holiday periods it is not unusual for long waiting lines (1400 feet or more) to stack up and for visitors to encounter long waiting times exceeding 10 minutes to enter the Park. When the lines are more than 1400 feet long the queue of vehicles interferes with access to businesses in Springdale and interferes with operation of the Springdale shuttle bus route. The average time to process a vehicle is 37 seconds and the capacity of the South Entrance Station (the two regular lanes, not including the employee lane) is about 194 vehicles per hour under average conditions. During a full year, it is estimated that at least 136 days experience at least some period of time when demand exceeds capacity and significant queues develop. A few strategies are already in use at the South Entrance Station to expedite transactions. They include the employee automated lane for employees and other eligible users and waving vehicles through the employee lane that already have an entry credential. Potential additional strategies include: increase the number of lanes, convert the employee lane to a staffed express lane to be used by both employees and those visitors who already hold an entry credential, lengthen the employee lane, sell entry permits at remote locations, improve information for visitors, and more extensive use of Highway Advisory Radio. A discussion of alternatives for Entrance Station improvements is included.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Introduction 1

Existing Conditions 1

Current Operating Characteristics 2

Quantitative Information 7

When Do High Volume Days Occur? 8

When Do High Volume Hours Occur? 14

Terminology 14

Factors Affecting Service Times and Capacity 15

Observed Service Times 16

Capacity of Zion South Entrance Station 20

Comparison of Zion with Two Other Parks 23

Queue Lengths, Waiting Times and Vehicle Arrivals 23

Number of Days When Demand Exceeds Capacity 27

Existing Strategy Used at Zion to Facilitate Transactions 27

Strategies Used by Other Parks to Facilitate Transactions 28

Additional Strategies for Zion to Consider 33

Future Demand 34

Alternatives 37

Downstream Effects 49

Possible Applications of Advanced Technology 49

Acknowledgments 52

References 53

Appendices 54 - 57

1

INTRODUCTION This comprehensive report presents information on the operation of the South Entrance Station at Zion National Park. Included is information on existing conditions and current operating characteristics, traffic volumes, capacity of the entrance station, queue lengths and waiting times, and strategies to facilitate the processing of vehicles. The findings of this report will assist Zion National Park in the management of the South Entrance Station and in decision-making on future strategies to reduce congestion. EXISTING CONDITIONS Zion National Park is one of the more popular units in the National Park System. Zion had 2,825,505 Recreational Visits in 2011 (Reference 1). Vehicular entry to the Park occurs at three major locations. Access to Zion Canyon is available from the South Entrance and the East Entrance. A separate entry point for Kolob Canyon is located in the northwest portion of the Park. A minor road through Kolob Terrace adds a very minor additional visitation to the Park. The number of vehicles entering the Park at each of the three major locations in 2011 is shown below. 2011 Vehicle Count percent of total South Entrance 620,645 64.7 East Entrance 265,682 27.7 Kolob Canyon 73,194 7.6 For the Zion Canyon portion of the Park – the area most highly visited, the South Entrance accounts for 70 percent of the vehicle entries and the East Entrance accounts for 30 percent of the vehicle entries. Thus, very large volumes of traffic approach the South Entrance Station. Statistics provided by Park staff show that in the twelve months of 2011, 468,860 vehicles passed through the South Entrance during the hours that the Entrance Station was in operation. During the summer season and other selected holiday periods it is not unusual for waiting lines to stack up and for visitors to encounter significant waiting times to enter the Park. These are the symptoms of demand (number of vehicles arriving in a period of time) exceeding the capacity of the entrance station (number of vehicles that can be processed in the same period of time). Shuttle bus drivers on the Springdale Route (operated by Park Transportation, Inc.) are daily observers of the length of the entrance station queues. Those drivers report that on a typical busy day the queue backs up to Café Soleil, which is located 1800 feet from the entrance station. On the busiest days of the year (Memorial Day weekend, for example) the queue is reported to back up to Flanigan’s (almost to Lion Boulevard). This is 3200 feet from the entrance station.

2

CURRENT OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS Hours of operation vary with the season. The hours of operation during 2011 are shown below.

January 1 to February 27, 2011 7:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. February 28 to March 12, 2011 7:45 a.m. to 6:45 p.m. March 13 to March 26, 2011 7:45 a.m. to 7:15 p.m. March 27, 2011 7:45 a.m. to 8:10 p.m. March 28 to April 24, 2011 7:15 a.m. to 8:10 p.m. April 25 to May 8, 2011 7:15 a.m. to 8:40 p.m. May 9 to June 5, 2011 7:15 a.m. to 9:15 p.m. June 6 to June 27, 2011 6:45 a.m. to 9:15 p.m. June 28 to September 18, 2011 7:15 a.m. to 9:15 p.m. September 19 to October 23, 2011 7:15 a.m. to 8:15 p.m. October 24 to mid-November, 2011 7:45 a.m. to 6:15 p.m. Week of Thanksgiving 7:45 a.m. to 5:45 p.m. After Thanksgiving to December 31 7:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.

After the evening closing, vehicular traffic is free to pass through the entrance station without paying a fee. As do most other National Park units, Zion National Park currently uses Advantage fee collection software developed by Intermountain Cash Register. Although there are three lanes passing through the entrance station itself, most of the roadway approaching the entrance station is a single northbound travel lane for moving traffic. The Google Earth image shown below includes 2000 feet of approach roadway to the entrance station (shown in the upper right).

3

This image and subsequent aerial images courtesy of Google Earth

4

Approximately 548 feet from the entrance station building, the roadway markings change from a single approach lane to two approach lanes. This occurs at the location of the south driveway entrance to the small parking lot next to the Zion National Park sign.

The transition from a single lane approach to a two lane approach appears in the Google Earth image below.

5

Beyond the Zion National Park sign, at a point about 200 feet from the entrance station, the pavement begins to widen to provide a third lane – the employee lane.

The two regular lanes are contiguous and lane changing may occur between these lanes. All types of transactions (described later) can be made in either of the two regular lanes; neither of the two regular lanes is limited to only certain types of transactions. The 548 foot distance was observed to be long enough to allow, on average, 15 to 18 vehicles to “stack” in each lane (from the beginning point - where the roadway first becomes two lanes wide – to the entrance station). Thus, about 30 to 36 vehicles “stack” in the two lane section. The employee lane may be used by any vehicle that has an electronic radio frequency tag that will automatically open a gate arm. Employees of the National Park Service, concessionaires, and Park Transportation, Inc. are eligible to receive electronic tags. Occasionally a commercial delivery vehicle will use the employee lane, knowing that fee collection staff in one of the kiosks can manually trigger the gate arm to open.

6

Although the employee lane allows employee vehicles to “jump” a short queue, the queue of stacked vehicles in the other two lanes frequently extends far enough to block access to the employee lane. The Google Earth image below shows about 250 feet of approach roadway. The Zion Park sign is located at the bottom of the image.

7

Signing and Marking Guide signing on the approach to the entrance station alerts the visitor that they are arriving to Zion National Park. A sign about 1600 feet in advance of the entrance station provides information that Zion National Park is straight ahead and that the Zion Canyon Theater and Zion National Park Pedestrian Entrance are to the right. At this location the pavement is marked for a single lane approach plus a parking lane. About 500 feet upstream from the entrance station, at the first driveway to the Zion sign parking lot, a simple changeable message sign provides the message “Visitor Center Parking Lot Full - Park in Springdale”. This sign is displayed when the main Visitor Center parking lot and the Visitor Center Overflow parking lot are both full. Upstream from this sign are informational signs giving the level of fire danger and that Zion is a U.S. fee area. A 15 mph speed limit sign is displayed downstream. From this point to the entrance station, the only additional signing is the National Park Service arrowhead and accompanying Zion National Park sign (mounted on a rock masonry column) and a sign to designate the Employee Lane at the entrance station. QUANTITATIVE INFORMATION The next several pages of this report present information on traffic volumes, transaction times, entrance station capacity, queue lengths, and waiting times. The value of this quantitative information is that it will: 1) assist in identifying the nature of the entrance station congestion problem; 2) aid in identifying strategies to alleviate the problem: 3) evaluate the potential effect of various strategies; and 4) aid in decision-making.

8

WHEN DO HIGH VOLUME DAYS OCCUR ? Like many other National Parks, visitation at Zion is seasonal. Inadequate capacity, long queues, and long waiting times become an issue on the higher volume days of the year. Figure 1 presents information on the number of vehicles entering at the South Entrance Station during a 12 month period from January 1 through December 31, 2011. The numbers of vehicles entering the Park was obtained from loop detector traffic counters located at the South Entrance Station. The counter provides a 24 hour total for each day, covering both the hours that the entrance station is in operation and collecting fees and “after hours” when no fees are collected. [Note: On July 27 the traffic counts from the traffic counters for the time period from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. were compared to the number of transactions at the entrance station. There was reasonably good agreement between the counts and number of transactions. In the west lane the count was 4 percent higher than the number of transactions. In the east lane the count was 1 percent lower. This represents a reasonably good agreement, especially considering that a vehicle towing a trailer may be counted as two vehicles. This reasonably good agreement gives confidence in the traffic counts.] The seasonal pattern at Zion is obvious. The “peak season” has very broad shoulders with visitation increasing substantially during the month of March and remaining high (with the exception of the end of August) until mid-October. Apparent spikes in visitation are associated with the days surrounding Easter (April 24 in 2011), Memorial Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, and the Christmas / New Year’s period. There is also a modest phenomenon of visitation being higher on Saturdays during some parts of the year. It is most obvious on Saturdays in the fall season October (see Figure 1). The highest volume day in 2011 was Monday, May 30, 2011 (Memorial Day) when about 3,056 vehicles passed through the South Entrance Station. The days with higher volume – those days with greater than about 2300 vehicles – generally correspond with the days when queuing will develop and have longer waiting times. For comparison purposes, Figure 2 presents information on the number of vehicles processed at Grand Canyon’s South Entrance Station for dates from September 1, 2004 through August 31, 2005. Although the number of vehicles processed at Grand Canyon’s South Entrance are more than double the number processed at Zion’s South Entrance, the seasonal profile is similar, with broad shoulders to the peak season. As a second comparison, Figure 3 presents information on the number of vehicles entering Arches National Park on each day in 2003. The highest number of vehicles (1394) entered Arches on a Saturday in May. Arches also has broad shoulders to its peak season. The weekend phenomenon is much more pronounced at Arches and is obvious from March through October. As a third comparison, Figure 4 presents similar information for Mesa Verde National Park for 2004. At Mesa Verde, the highest number of vehicles (1211) entered the Park on Memorial Day weekend. The weekend phenomenon does not occur at Mesa Verde. In fact, the highest volume days during mid-summer are on Wednesdays. Compared to Grand Canyon and Arches, Mesa Verde has very narrow shoulders; i.e., a much shorter peak season.

10

Figure 2 – Number of Vehicles Entering Grand Canyon South Entrance by Day

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1/1 1/12

1/23

2/3 2/14

2/25

3/8 3/19

3/30

4/10

4/21

5/2 5/13

5/24

6/4 6/15

6/26

7/7 7/18

7/29

8/9 8/20

8/31

9/11

9/22

10/3

10/14

10/25 11

/511

/1611

/27 12/8

12/19

12/30

DATE

NU

MB

ER

OF

VE

HIC

LES

EN

TER

ING

PE

R D

AY

11

Figure 3 – N

umber of V

ehicles Entering A

rches National P

ark by Day - 2003

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1/1

1/15

1/29

2/12

2/26

3/11

3/25

4/8

4/22

5/6

5/20

6/3

6/17

7/1

7/15

7/29

8/12

8/26

9/9

9/23

10/7

10/21

11/4

11/18

12/2

12/16

12/30

DA

TE

NUMBER OF VEHICLES ENTERING PER DAY

12

Figure 4 – Num

ber of Vehicles E

ntering Mesa V

erde National P

ark by Day - 2004

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

14001/1

1/15

1/29

2/12

2/26

3/11

3/25

4/8

4/22

5/6

5/20

6/3

6/17

7/1

7/15

7/29

8/12

8/26

9/9

9/23

10/7

10/21

11/4

11/18

12/2

12/16

DA

TE

NUMBER OF VEHICLES ENTERING PER DAY

13

Figure 5 shows the distribution of the number of vehicles entering at the Zion South Entrance Station by day. For example, there were 34 days on which 2500 or more vehicles entered and 182 days on which 2000 or more vehicles entered. Table 1 also summarizes the distribution. The data for the 20 highest days is also shown in the following table.

Highest day -- 3056 entering vehicles

Number of days with 2700 or more entering vehicles 13Number of days with 2500 or more entering vehicles 34Number of days with 2400 or more entering vehicles 60Number of days with 2300 or more entering vehicles 102Number of days with 2100 or more entering vehicles 161Number of days with 1800 or more entering vehicles 208Number of days with 1500 or more entering vehicles 242Number of days with 1000 or more entering vehicles 274

TABLE 1 - DISTRIBUTION OF ENTERING VEHICLES

Table 1 - South Entrance Station Vehicle Counts - 2011 - Ranked from Highest to Lowest

DateVehicle Count

Rank Order

Additional

May 30, 2011 3056 1 Memorial Day 12 percent higher than the 10th highest day in 2011May 29, 2011 2988 2 Sunday of Memorial Day weekend

November 12, 2011 2982 3 Fee Free Day Saturday of Veteran's Day weekendJuly 30, 2011 2979 4 Saturday

August 14, 2011 2949 5 SundayMay 28, 2011 2929 6 Saturday of Memorial Day weekend

September 4, 2011 2813 7 Sunday of Labor Day weekendOctober 21, 2011 2789 8 Friday

July 2, 2011 2737 9 Saturday of July 4th weekendApril 20, 2011 2723 10 10th highest day in 2011 Fee Free Day ( Wednesday)May 27, 2011 2722 11 Friday of Memorial Day weekend

September 24, 2011 2718 12 Fee Free DaySeptember 3, 2011 2704 13 Saturday of Labor Day weekend

August 6, 2011 2694 14August 12, 2011 2664 15

April 22, 2011 2659 16 Fee Free Day (a Friday)August 5, 2011 2643 17

July 3, 2011 2624 18 Saturday, July 7, 2012 was a count of 2629July 1, 2011 2621 19 Friday of July 4th weekend

April 23, 2011 2583 20 Fee Free Day (a Saturday)

14

WHEN DO HIGH VOLUME HOURS OCCUR? Figure 6 shows the number of vehicles processed at the South Entrance Station, by hour of the day, on Saturday, July 7, 2012. The profile exhibits a mid-morning peak and a lower volume peak later in the afternoon. Peak volume occurs between 10:00 and 11:00 a.m. Traffic volume grows quickly during the first few hours of the morning. Volume then declines by mid-day and rises for the later afternoon peak. This profile portrays the relative hourly distribution of traffic on a summer Saturday. Zion’s fee management staff believe that the peak occurs earlier on weekends and later on weekdays. Figure 6 likely represents the profile of traffic volume on weekdays, except that the weekday peak hour may be shifted to the right. TERMINOLOGY In this report “service time” is defined as the length of time required for the Visitor Use Assistant to process a customer at an entrance station. Service time begins when the vehicle comes to a stop at the entrance booth (arrival time). Service time ends when the vehicle begins to pull away from the entrance booth (departure time). Service time is measured in seconds. “Move-up time” occurs between the departure time of one vehicle and the arrival time of the following vehicle when there is a continuous supply of vehicles waiting to be served. “Interval between arrivals”, as used in this report, is the sum of service time and move-up time.

15

“Capacity” for an entrance station is defined as the number of vehicles per hour that can be processed in a lane (or lanes) at an entrance station. Capacity is measured in vehicles per hour, but the rate can also apply to a shorter period of time. If capacity is 120 vehicles per hour, this means that 20 vehicles per ten minute period can be processed. FACTORS AFFECTING SERVICE TIMES AND CAPACITY Service times and, in turn, capacity are influenced by many different factors. The factors include the following.

1. The type of entry into the Park. A visitor who presents a previously purchased pass can be processed quickly. In contrast, a visitor who wants to purchase an Interagency Annual Pass or an entry permit with a credit card requires much greater time. A more complete list of different types of entry into a Park is presented later in this report.

2. The mix of transactions. The proportion of visitors who hold a previously purchased pass

versus those who do not will significantly affect average capacity. If all visitors hold a previously purchased pass, a large number of vehicles per hour can be processed (high capacity). If all visitors must purchase an entry permit, a much smaller number of vehicles per hour can be processed (low capacity).

3. How well informed is the visitor about the various payment options for entering the Park?

There are many options, and some options apply only to certain groups of individuals, such as the Senior Pass. The information displayed on signs approaching the entrance station may not display all of the choices. The visitor may need to ask questions about their choices. To help visitors decide whether an Interagency Pass is a economical choice, the Visitor Use Assistant may also ask the visitor if they are planning to go to Bryce Canyon or other national parks, and this takes additional time.

4. Whether or not staff are deployed to “work the line” of vehicles to provide information

and answer questions before the customer arrives at the booth.

5. The type of fee collection software and equipment and its reliability.

6. The amount of printed information and safety advisories given to the visitor. Some Parks must warn visitors of safe behavior around wildlife or roadway conditions. Parks with scheduled activities, such as the ticketed tours to Mesa Verde Cliff Dwellings, must provide information. As another example, Petrified Forest National Park asks each inbound visitor, “Do you have any rocks or petrified wood in your vehicle?” Glacier National Park measures the length of vehicles to ensure that they do not exceed the length limit for Going to the Sun Road.

7. The number of questions asked by the visitor. The variety of questions is broad,

including questions about camping, activities in the Park, concession services, etc.

16

8. Whether or not a Visitor Center exists outside of the Park entrance (such as at Grand Teton National Park at Moose, Acadia National Park, and White Sands National Monument) and whether the visitor has stopped there. Visitors who have stopped at a Visitor Center are less likely to have questions to ask at the entrance station.

9. The proximity of a Visitor Center to the Park Entrance. If vehicle queues are long and a

Visitor Center is nearby (just inside the Park entrance) the Visitor Use Assistant can encourage a visitor to stop at the Visitor Center to ask their questions, thus reducing the service time.

10. The length of the queue. A long queue may result in more rapid processing by the Visitor

Use Assistant while the lack of any queue may result in more leisurely processing, extended conversation, and inviting the visitor to ask more questions than if the queue is long.

11. Service time will vary among Visitor Use Assistants, depending upon their length of

experience as a VUA and their “style” of serving the visitor. OBSERVED SERVICE TIMES Data on service times were collected at the Zion South Entrance Station on Wednesday, July 11, 2012. Data were collected for a total of seven hours. For the purpose of fee collection operations, the two regular entrance station lanes are referred to (from west to east) as Lane 1 and Lane 2. Data was collected for approximately equal periods of time in each lane and transactions were conducted by several different Visitor Use Assistants during the seven hours of data collection. The times of arrival and departure (hours:minutes:seconds) were recorded on a laptop computer, along with the type of transaction. The type of transaction was later confirmed with a time-stamped record produced by the fee collection system. Almost 500 usable transactions were recorded. At Zion, like most Parks, there are many different payment choices for entering the Park. In fact, only some of the choices are posted on the sign approaching the entrance station (see photo). A description of the choices at Zion is shown in Table 2. As indicated in Table 2, the most common payment choices during the seven hours of data collection were Fees Posted on Sign at Entrance Station

17

presentation of a previously purchased Interagency Annual Pass (154 such transactions during the data collection period), purchase of a Seven Day Auto permit with cash (90 transactions), presentation of a previously purchased Senior Pass (66 transactions), and Return Visit (re-entry on a previously purchased Seven Day Auto permit – 64 transactions). Average service times for each type of transaction are also presented in Table 2. It is emphasized that service time varies from vehicle to vehicle; the values shown in Table 2 are simply average values. Some observations about average service times include the following.

1. Purchase of some types of pass (Interagency Annual Pass, Senior Pass, Access Pass, Zion Annual Pass), even when paid by cash, takes considerably longer than a Seven Day Auto permit. Each of these types of passes must be signed at point of purchase. The Senior Pass requires proof of U.S. citizenship and proof of age. The Access Pass requires proof of disability.

2. Re-entry by vehicles that previously purchased a Seven Day Auto permit within the past

7 days (referred to as a Return Visit) is exceptionally fast – only 7 seconds.

3. Entry by presentation of a previously purchased pass results in a short service time (Zion Annual Pass – 11 seconds, Interagency Annual Pass – 22 seconds, Senior Pass – 24 seconds, Access Pass – 27 seconds. The service time is longer than re-entry on a Seven Day Auto permit because the identity of the passholder is often checked. In addition, each of these passes is usually swiped in a cardreader to gather use statistics.

4. Some classes of users have very short service times (Local Stickers – 5 seconds, Park or

Concession Employee – 7 seconds).

18

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

�� ! "

�� ! "

�� #�� $�� %� &� � %�

�� #�� $�� %$ �' � $�

�� (��)�� $�� ! "

��% (��)�� $�� ! "

��*�� #��

�$�� ! "

�� +��#��,�� -�� &% - � ��

�� +��#��,�� -�� &� �� &-

�$ ).� ��+��+��#��,�

#�� +��

�.� ��+��

�.��/

! "

�� +��#��,�

�� +��

��0��+��/��,��

� �� +��+��/

�� &� � � &�

�$ ).� ��+��+��#��,�

#�� +��

�.� ��+��

�.��/��*�� ! ,1��

��+��.� ��+��*�

��*�� *��*��

� �� +��/

! "

�� +��1��,�� & � ��&

�� +��1��,��

�$ ).� ��+��+��1��,�

#�� +��

�.� ��+��

�.��/��*�� ! ,1��

��+��.� ��+��*�

��*�� *��*��

� �� +��/

! "

)��*��*��

� ��/��,�� ,��2/

)�� /��,��

�� ,��2/

3� ��.��+��

� �� + �� 4 �/�5��

�� /��( ��*��

�� *�� +��

� �� /

,�� +��+��

��! ,1�� /

,�� ! ,1�

�� /��6��

19

��

��

�%�� #��7��,�� $�� &' � � ��

�%�� #��7��,�� $� ! "

�&��*��&��*�

%��%�� 5��

8�� +��

��+��+��/�� '� � � �%

%%�� 5�� 3� ��,��

#��

,��2/�� ! "

��

&�� !��

#�� 0��*��

��*�� /�� ! "

&�� 8��9 ��:��

#�� 0��

��+��/�� $ � � ��

&�'� ;��7��#��,� )�� 7��#��,�/ �� -

&�-� ,��2��5��)� ��

)�� ,��2��

5��/�� ' � �%

&�&� 8��8��"��

( ��! ��,��2�1�� +��

��

�� +��/

��

&�� <��1��2��

#�� +��+�

��7��5��/�� $ ��

&�'� ;��3��

;��

��"��#��,�� /

�� '% � �%

&�� 1�� "��;��

;��

��"��#��,��

��

�� ,��2��/

�� % � � ��

&�$� ��+��#��,� )�� +��#��,�/ �� $% � �&

&�$� ��+��1��,� )�� 1��,�/ �� % '' � ��

&�$� ��+��#��,� )�� #��,�/ �� %

&�$� ��+��3�,�,� )�� 3�� ,��2�,�/ �� %

! "�=�! ��"�� /

>5� >�� *��?�� 2*�� 2/

>5��>�� /

�� ,��*�� '�� ,��/��( ��2��

�� /�� *�� @�� /��

( �� *%��*�� 0�� /

#��7��! ��,��2��/��

,�� +�

20

CAPACITY OF ZION SOUTH ENTRANCE STATION To determine capacity of an entrance station lane, the “move-up time” between vehicles must also be considered. “Move-up time” occurs between the departure time of one vehicle and the arrival time of the following vehicle when there is a continuous supply of vehicles waiting to be served. The average move-up time between vehicles was observed to be 7 seconds. Adding the average service time plus the move-up time yields the interval between arrivals shown in Table 2. The average move-up time between vehicles at Zion (7 seconds) is the same as the average move-up time observed at Arches National Park in March, 2005 and at Grand Canyon in September, 2005. For a given Park, service times, move-up times, and the mix of transaction types can be used to generate an hourly value for capacity for average conditions. For example, for the Zion South Entrance Station, the average time to process a vehicle can be computed as shown in Table 3. Table 3 simply calculates a weighted average of the times associated with each type of transaction. The number of transactions shown in Table 3 represents the proportion of each transaction type at the South Entrance Station over a one year period (January 1 to December 31, 2011). The average time for all vehicles in this simple, weighted-average computation is 35.5 seconds. A minor adjustment must be made to this value to consider the effect of transactions purchasing an Escort (tunnel) permit. Collected transaction data show that purchasing a tunnel permit adds about one minute to the time required for purchase or presentation of an entry credential. Tunnel permits are purchased with only about one out of every 50 transactions. Therefore, on the average, purchasing a tunnel permit adds a little more than one second to transaction time. Thus, with this adjustment, the average time for all vehicles is 37 seconds. This includes both service time and move-up time. As there are 3600 seconds in an hour, an average time per vehicle of 37 seconds means that 3600 / 37 = 97 vehicles per hour can be processed. Thus, the capacity of one entrance lane would be 97 vehicles per hour under average conditions. This capacity is slightly overstated because it does not consider that time is consumed in shift changes, software system crashes and rebooting time. The mix of transaction types does affect capacity and the mix does vary from day to day during the year. At Grand Canyon, data from the fee collection system showed that a high volume holiday weekend in summer has a different mix from a high volume mid-week day in summer. In fact, the high volume weekend day had a lesser capacity than an average day. The same could be true at Zion. The value of 97 vehicles per hour per lane suggests that the two-lane entrance station at the Zion South Entrance should be able to process about 194 vehicles per hour under average conditions. Is this estimate reasonable? The answer is, yes. Three other sources of information were used to validate the value. First, the fee collection software can produce a report of every transaction on a given day. This type of report was produced for several hours on July 11 and July 12. Reviewing the number of transactions during hours of the day that were “busy” (a continuous

21

demand of vehicles) showed a maximum of 108 vehicles per hour per lane. This value is reasonably close to the calculated value of 97 vehicles per hour. The slightly larger value of 108 may simply be due to the mix of transaction types during that time period. Second, hourly summaries of transactions (again, produced by the fee collection software) for July 7 showed values of 106 to 117 vehicles per hour per lane. Again, the slightly larger values may simple be due to the mix of transaction types. Third, “peak hour” turning movement counts were conducted downstream of the entrance station from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon on July 7. These were hours that had a continuous demand of vehicles at the entrance station. After adjustment for vehicles that entered through the employee lane, the turning movement counts tallied about 109 to 111 vehicles per hour per lane. These three confirming sources of information provide evidence that the calculated value of 97 vehicles per hour per lane is reasonable. A few observations about capacity are worth noting. First, a small number of transaction types account for a large proportion of all vehicles entering the Park. Based on entries for a 12 month period, one type of transaction accounts for over one-fourth of the entries, two types of transactions account for 44 percent of the entries, and four types of transactions account for 72 percent of the entries. Any improvements to entrance station operation should focus on improvements to those transaction types that account for the larger numbers of vehicles entering the Park. Second, Return Visits accounts for a very large number of the vehicles (14.4 percent) entering the Park. Even though the processing time for these vehicles is short (7 seconds), the large number of vehicles mean that they absorb entrance station capacity. Third, about 71 percent of vehicles are entering the Park on a previously acquired credential and these transactions, on the average, have an interval between arrivals of 24 seconds. The remaining 29 percent of vehicles entering the Park that must make a purchase transaction have an average interval between arrivals of 63 seconds – over two and one-half times as long. The high percentage of vehicles with a previously acquired credential suggests that an express lane – for those vehicles that already hold an entry credential – would have merit.

22

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

��

�� !!

��

��

��

��

��

��

��"��

��

��

�� ! �

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

�� '*'$� �/%$A �� $ %&$

�� *��% �/��A -& � '��

�� #�� '%*�-� �%/�%A %� �%� '*'��

�� #�� $*�� $/%-A $� $$ �*-'�

�� (��)�� *�%' �

��% (��)�� *��$ �

��*�� #��

�� +��#��,�� '*'%& �/%$A �� $ �*$�$

�� +��#��,�� *�'� �/��A &- �� *&%�

�$ ).� ��+��+��#��,� '& �/��A � �

�� +��#��,� -'� �/�&A &� � �&%

�$ ).� ��+��+��#��,� -� �/��A � �

�� +��1��,�� *&-� �/�%A ��& �� *�&�

�� +��1��,�� *�� /�'A �� '�

�$ ).� ��+��+��1��,� %�' �/�&A '� � '�

�%�� #��7��,�� ''$ �/�$A ��

�%�� #��7��,�� *��$ �/��A ��

�&��*��&��*�

%��%�� 5�� *'�$ �/�$A �% � ��

%%�� 5�� 3� ��,�� $� �/��A � �

��

&�� ! �� '*�'� �/%-A �� $ �&$

&�� 8��9 ��:�� -% �/�-A ��

&�'� ;��7��#��,� $*'%- �/��A �- �� '

&�-� ,��2��5��)� �� '*&�$ �/��A �% �� $�-

&�� <��1��2�� &*&�' �/�'A �� '%

&�'� ;��3�� '$*-�� %/�'A �% �%% �*��'

&�� 1�� "��;�� -*'$� �/-&A �� & ��&

&�$� ��+��#��,� ��*�� '/%�A �& �'% �*'$'

&�$� ��+��1��,� -�*�� /%-A �� $ $*%�$

&�$� ��+��#��,� -*�$� �/�-A �% �- '��

&�$� ��+��3�,�,� ''� �/�$A �% � �%

�$*$�&

(B (#<�! C4 D);�B 8�3)6�5<)1�,;B5)11)"�� %$-*�-& ��/��A

(B(#<�

(;#! 1#5(�B ! 1�=�

�*��

(B (#<�(�4 )�=�

�$*$�&��

! ��E��(��)��(��! �� 3� ��,��+

#3);#:)�(�4 )�(B �,;B5)11�#�

3)6�5<)�=��$/$�1)5B ! "1

9 6)! �#"FC1()"�8B ;�)15B;(�

(;#! 1#5(�B ! 1*�#3);#:)�(�4 )�(B �

,;B 5)11�# �3)6�5<)�=��1)5B !"1

! ��E��8�� + ��+ �� *�� 7��/��;��

�� D�� #�� *�� :��5��! ��,��2*��

��7�� /��( ��+�� G��

�� +��/�

! ��E��( ��>8��8��"��>�� (��! �� 3� ��,��

� �� +��

��+��/

23

COMPARISON OF ZION WITH TWO OTHER PARKS It is of interest to compare the capacity at Zion’s South Entrance Station with similar data that has been collected at other Parks – Arches and Grand Canyon. Average Time to Capacity Process a Vehicle (Vehicles per hour (seconds)………. per lane) Arches 32 112 Grand Canyon South Entrance 39 92 Zion South Entrance 37 97 As described in the section on Factors Affecting Service Time and Capacity, there are numerous factors affecting service time. Thus, there are a variety of reasons for the variation in processing time and capacity from Park to Park. Grand Canyon is a more complex Park than is Arches and this may result in more visitor questions. Unlike Arches and Zion, the Grand Canyon does not have a visitor center immediately inside the entrance to which visitors can be referred if they have numerous questions. Commercial buses, shuttles and transit are much more numerous at the Grand Canyon and these are transaction classes with long processing times. Arches and Zion have a much higher percentage of their entries that are re-entries on an Interagency Pass (formerly know as National Parks Pass). At the Grand Canyon 11.78 percent of the annual entries are National Parks Pass re-entries; on one high volume day at Arches, they were 26.2 percent of all transactions. At Zion, re-entry on an Interagency Pass accounts for 26.4 percent of transactions annually. Re-entry on an Interagency Pass is one of the transaction types with a short processing time. These are some of the reasons that processing times vary among these three Parks. QUEUE LENGTHS, WAITING TIMES AND VEHICLE ARRIVALS Queue lengths and waiting times will vary from day to day and hour to hour. The length of queue will depend primarily on the arrival rate of vehicles compared to the capacity (or discharge rate) of the entrance station. When vehicles arrive at a faster rate than they can be processed at the entrance station, the queue will grow. When vehicles arrive at a slower rate than they can be processed, the queue will diminish. If the arrival rate exceeds the entrance station capacity for a prolonged period of time, the queue will exist for a long period. Very generally speaking, whether queues will develop on any given day is related to the daily volume of traffic approaching the entrance station. Thus, daily volume information, as shown in Figure 1 can be used as a general predictor of the potential for queues developing. A second factor is also very instrumental in whether queues form. That factor is the magnitude of “peaking” during the day. If the daily traffic volume arrives at a uniform rate throughout the day, vehicles may pass through the entrance station with very little delay. This is because the rate at which the vehicles arrive is less than the entrance station capacity. On the other hand, if peaking occurs (for example, most of the daily traffic arriving between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00

24

p.m.), the arrival rate during the peak may exceed the capacity of the entrance station and queues will form and grow. The more pronounced the peaking of traffic during the day, the more likely that queues will form and the longer they are likely to grow. Queue lengths, waiting times and vehicle arrivals were observed on Saturday, July 7, 2012. As a frame of reference, 2,629 vehicles passed into the Park at the South Entrance on this date. This would have placed July 7 as equal to the 18th highest day in 2011 (shown in Figure 5). Because visitation to Zion has been higher in 2012 than in 2011, July 7 will rank lower compared to other dates in 2012. Data was collected from a vantage point on a hilltop overlooking the approach roadway to the South Entrance Station. From this location on the west side of State Route 9, opposite the small parking lot near the Zion National Park sign, a continuous view of the approach roadway was available from the entrance station to a point about 1800 feet south of the entrance station (near Café Soleil). The length of queue, waiting times and vehicle arrivals were observed from 9:30 a.m. to 2:45 p.m. A laptop computer was used for data collection. Use of a simple macro allowed a time stamp (hour, minute and second) to be recorded for any event by using a single keystroke. A timestamp was recorded for every vehicle arrival at the end of the queue – over 1000 vehicles in the five hour period. This allowed the rate of vehicle arrivals to be recorded, including a high arrival rate of 254 vehicles per hour between 10:00 and 11:00. Vehicle arrivals by time period are shown in Table 4.

25

Queue length was noted periodically. Some queue lengths were recorded in terms of number of vehicles and some queue lengths were recorded as a distance (feet) from the entrance station. Prior to observing the queue, a measuring wheel was used to measure distances from the entrance station. These distances were recorded on an aerial photograph which was referred to for determining queue length in feet. Periodically, a vehicle would be tracked from the end of the queue until its arrival at the entrance station. Time stamps for the vehicle’s arrival at the end of the queue and for its arrival at the entrance station allowed waiting time to be calculated. Table 5 lists identifiable locations on the approach to the entrance station, the length of a queue in feet if it reached to each location, and the approximate number of vehicles in a queue extending to each location. The number of vehicles in queue for distances up to 1200 feet are based on actual observations. For distances greater than 1200 feet the number of vehicles is based on observations of the queue at Grand Canyon’s South Entrance Station.

!#�$ %&'()�

*+'&( �+',-.�(+(/-

'%�� &E��&E%$ '%

$'�� &E%$��E�� $'

$'�� E��E�$ $'

'�� E�$��E�� '� ��'

'�� E��E%$ '� ��$

�$�� E%$��E�� $ �$%

$�� E��E�$ $� �%-

�� E�$��E�� $

$%�� E��E%$ $% ��'

'�� E%$��E�� '� ��

%�� E��E�$ %� �&$

�� E�$��E�� &$

%&�� E��E%$ %& �&�

�'�� E%$��E�� ' �'%

%�� E��E�$ %� �'&

%$�� E�$��E�� %$ ��

%&�� E��E%$ %& ��

�'�� E%$��E�� ' ��

�� E��E�$ �� '�

%'�� E�$��E�� %' �'-

�� E��E%$ �� %�

��0��

� ��

26

Observed queue lengths ranged from 0 (no cars waiting) to 1250 feet. Waiting time varies for a given queue length as shown by the observed data presented in Figure 7. Queue lengths of 500 to 600 feet, for example, may have waiting times ranging from 6 to 13 minutes. This length of queue corresponds to the location of the entrance to the small parking area by the Zion National Park sign. Based on numbers of vehicles waiting in the queue and the capacity of the entrance station, it is possible to estimate the waiting time for queues longer than those observed on July 7. On a typical busy day the queue is reported to back up to Café Soleil, a distance of 1800 feet from the entrance station. A queue of this length would have about 72 vehicles. If the entrance station processed 200 vehicles per hour, the waiting time would be 22 minutes. On the busiest days of the year the queue is reported to back up to Lion Boulevard, a distance of 3350 feet from the

��#��

�+*/(%+&

�%1(/&*)�2,+$ �

�&(,/&*)�

�(/(%+&��2))(�

�'$ 3),�+2�

4)5%*-)1�%&�

6')')

)�� $%- �'

( ��! �� "�� -'� %$

( ��1�� "�� %$� '�

5��H��1�� -��

<��D�� $� ��'

27

entrance station. A queue of this length would have about 116 vehicles. At a processing rate of 200 vehicles per hour, the waiting time would be 35 minutes. An example of a queuing scenario will help to illustrate how development of a queue can be very sensitive to a vehicle arrival rate that is only slightly greater than the processing rate (capacity) of the entrance station. Let’s say that at a time T the queue already extends to the south theater driveway. This is a queue length that develops often on busy summer days. At this location the queue is 1450 feet long and contains 62 vehicles. Then, if vehicles arrive at a rate of 254 vehicles per hour while the entrance station is processing only 200 vehicles per hour, the queue will grow by 54 vehicles in one hour’s time. Thus, at the end of one hour the queue will be 116 vehicles long and extend to Lion Boulevard. The arrival rate of 254 vehicles per hour would not be unusual. This rate was observed on July 7th. The processing rate of 200 vehicles per hour is about equal to the capacity of the two regular lanes plus the hourly number of vehicles using the employee lane. Thus, an arrival rate only slightly more than the entrance station capacity can result in a queue developing quickly. What would happen to the above scenario if entrance station capacity was increased to 300 vehicles per hour? This would be the capacity if one regular lane were added. The entrance station could easily handle an arrival rate of 254 vehicles per hour and no queue would form. NUMBER OF DAYS WHEN DEMAND EXCEEDS CAPACITY A preceding section on Capacity of South Entrance Station concluded that the capacity is 194 vehicles per hour for the two regular lanes. What are the time periods during the year when the demand (the number of vehicles arriving per hour) exceeds the capacity (the number of vehicles that can be processed per hour)? Park fee management staff report that the days of the year when significant queuing occurs corresponds to days when the 24-hour traffic count is above about 2000 to 2200 vehicles. See Figure 1 to identify these days. As shown in Figure 5, there are 136 days each year that reach 2200 vehicles per day. EXISTING STRATEGY USED AT ZION TO FACILITATE TRANSACTIONS Employee Lane Zion has a separate “Employee Lane” that is an activated gate that can be used by official NPS vehicles, Zion National Park NPS employees, Zion Natural History Association staff, employees of the concessionaire, and employees of Parks Transportation Incorporated. Eligible users are able to activate the gate arm with a radio frequency tag.

28

Waving Pre-Paid Vehicles Through the Employee Lane When lines become long, a Visitor Use Assistant (VUA) will often “rove” the line to identify those vehicles that already hold a credential to enter the Park. Those vehicles are then directed to the Employee Lane to enter the Park. Generally, only vehicles in the right hand lane are directed to the Employee Lane. STRATEGIES USED BY OTHER PARKS TO FACILITATE TRANSACTIONS Several strategies used by other parks are described below. Each of these strategies could be considered for use at Zion. “Roving” the line. At Grand Canyon National Park, when lines become long, a Visitor Use Assistant (VUA) will often “rove” the line. The roving VUA can answer questions for visitors, thus reducing the time needed for conversation between the visitor and the VUA in the entrance station booth. At Zion, employee health and safety is an important issue to consider for employees who might “rove” the line because of very high summer temperatures. Sale of Entry Permits at Remote Locations Acadia National Park sells very large numbers of passes and entry permits at a variety of locations outside of the Park entrance. The Interagency Pass, Senior Pass, Access Pass, Acadia National Park Annual Pass, and Seven-Day Entry Permits are sold by NPS staff at the Park visitor center (located about seven miles before arriving at the entrance station), the Thompson Island visitor information center and Chamber of Commerce (located about 14 miles before arriving at the entrance station), two NPS campgrounds (located before arriving at the entrance station), and at the transportation hub in Bar Harbor that serves the Acadia transit system. Seven-Day Entry Permits and the Acadia Annual Pass are also sold by three non-Park entities: the Northeast Harbor Chamber of Commerce, the Appalachian Mountain Club, and the Acadia Corporation (the Park’s concessionaire). These three entities sell the permits and passes at face value and provide this service at no cost to the Park. Table 6 presents information on sales at remote locations in Acadia National Park, circa 2005. At Acadia, 48.6 percent of the passes and permits are sold at locations prior to the visitors’ arrival at the entrance station. These sales account for 56.0 percent of the revenue. Acadia uses several methods of marketing and promotion to inform visitors that passes and permits may be purchased at remote locations.

• Local commercial newspapers • The Acadia Weekly / The Acadia Guide (the tourist newspaper for the region) • The Acadia National Park website (see below) • The Acadia National Park newspaper

29

• A separate flyer distributed at the entrance station, which also describes Park projects that have been funded with “fee demo” money

• The publication of the Island Explorer (the bus transit system that serves Acadia National Park), which includes the transit system route map, schedules, etc.

• A poster provided to area businesses, which the business can display The Park’s fee manager is also proactive in meeting with the local bicycling association, bicycle shop and rental facilities, kayak shops, and the chamber of commerce to promote the fee collection program and remote sales. The fee manager also sends letters to multiple chambers of commerce in the region regarding the fee collection program and remote sales. The statement on the Acadia National Park website reads:

“All passes can be purchased year-round at park headquarters or seasonally at Hulls Cove Visitor Center, the Bar Harbor Village Green, Blackwoods and Seawall Campgrounds, Thompson Island Information Center, and the entrance station on the Park Loop Road.”

The Park website, on the page listing Park Entrance Fees, also includes a hot link that reads as follows:

“Examples of projects that have been funded with park user fees at Acadia National Park through the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program.”

TABLE 6 - ACADIA NATIONAL PARK: PASSES SOLD AT REMOTE LOCATIONS

Location

Number of passes and permits sold

Percent of passes and permits sold

Percent of Revenue

Sales by NPS staff at remote locationsHulls Cove Visitor Center 44,546 31.8% 38.0%Village Green (transportation hub in Bar Harbor that serves the Island Explorer bus transit system) 9,423 6.7% 6.0%Thompson Island Visitor Information Center and Chamber of Commerce 6,308 4.5% 5.3%Blackwoods Campground 4,851 3.5% 4.0%Seawall Campground 2,542 1.8% 2.4%

Sales by non-Park entities at remote locationsAcadia Corporation (the Park's concessionaire) 175 0.1%Northeast Harbor Chamber of Commerce 120 0.1%Appalachian Mountain Club 100 0.1%

Sales at Park Entrance Station 72,090 51.4% 44.0%

Total 140,155 100.0% 100.0%

Sales are for the period from May 1 to October 31, 2005

0.3%

30

Grand Canyon National Park sells passes and entry permits at three off-site locations. One site is at the IMAX Theatre in Tusayan, 2 miles south of the entrance. Since March of 2006 this site has been staffed year-round by the Park Service. This staffed site sells all of the same types of entry permits that are available at the entrance station, including Commercial permits. A second staffed site is at the Williams Visitor Center, 51 miles south of the entrance. Only the Interagency Pass and the Senior Pass are sold at this location. Three NPS seasonal employees staff this location from April through October during normal business hours. For the remainder of the year, this location is staffed by non-NPS personnel. In addition, the Grand Canyon has automated fee machines that sell Seven-Day Re-Entry permits and Individual permits. The machines are located at the Tusayan and Williams locations and also at Valle, Arizona (24 miles south of the entrance). Purchasing a pass or an entry permits has a longer transaction time than does a simple entry on a pass or permit that has already been purchased. The greater the number of purchase transactions that can be made before arrival at the entrance station, the lower the average service time and the greater the capacity. Automated Fee Machine Sale of entry permits at remote locations does improve operation at Grand Canyon’s South Entrance Station. The number of permits and passes sold at remote locations, however, is relatively small. In 2005, sales at the remote locations accounted for only about six percent of the dollar value of entry permits used at Grand Canyon’s South Entrance Station. As a result of increased emphasis, the remote locations currently account for 8 to 10 percent of entry permits. In ideal circumstances, sale of entry permits at remote locations would capitalize on one or two major venues that are logical locations for visitors to stop and purchase a permit. The example at Grand Canyon is the IMAX Theater in the gateway community of Tusayan. At Acadia the example is the Hulls Cove Visitor Center. Zion does not have a comparable single major venue, which may mean that this strategy would have less impact at Zion. A review of transactions at the Zion South Entrance Station shows that only about 29 percent of visitors are purchasing their entry credential at the entrance station while 71 percent are entering on a previously purchased credential. And, a review of the 29 percent comprising purchases shows only one type of purchase that comprises a major percentage of transactions. That is the purchase of an Auto 7-day pass, which accounts for 19.64 percent of transactions. Other types of purchases are small in number. For this reason, if Zion chose to pursue sale of entry permits at remote locations, it would make sense to focus on sale of Auto 7-day passes.

31

Express Lane Several National Parks use an Express Lane to provide expedited service for selected types of transactions. At Grand Canyon’s South Entrance, the Express Lane may be used by any vehicle that has a prepaid permit or is otherwise not required to pay a fee for entry to the Park. These vehicles include holders of: a previously purchased Interagency Pass, Senior Pass, Access Pass, Grand Canyon National Park Annual Pass, or Seven-Day Entry Permit; Park residents or employees; or Park business-related vehicles. During a one-year period, 52.7 percent of the vehicles processed at the Grand Canyon South Entrance station were in these eligible categories. It should be pointed out, however, that this percentage has a natural variation from day to day and hour to hour, depending on the mix of transactions. The eligible types of transactions have short intervals between arrivals. As a result, the theoretical capacity of the Express Lane (at Grand Canyon) is high - 164 vehicles per hour. This theoretical capacity is often not achieved, even when there are long queues approaching the entrance station, for two reasons. First, occasionally, non-eligible vehicles choose to use the Express Lane. These non-eligible vehicles have transaction times that are longer. Use by these vehicles may cause the express lane to bog down. Second, the queue of stacked vehicles in the other three lanes often extends far enough to block access to the express lane. The result is no supply of vehicles for the express lane and inefficient “dead time” for that lane. Third, non-eligible vehicles may be directed to the Express Lane during busy periods by a Visitor Use Assistant (VUA) that is “roving” the lines of waiting vehicles. If there are no eligible vehicles to use the Express Lane, non-eligible vehicles will be directed there to take advantage of unused capacity. The main advantage of the Express Lane is that it reduces the waiting time for those who are eligible to use it. At Grand Canyon’s South Entrance, if the queues are about 18 vehicles long, the time saved by use of the Express Lane was observed to be in the range of 5 to 16 minutes, with an average of about 8 minutes. An Express Lane has significant potential at Zion’s South Entrance because 71 percent of visitors enter on a credential they have already acquired. Automated Lanes An automated system to process selected vehicles holds the promise of reducing congestion and waiting times, reducing personnel costs, and providing expedited entry for certain users. Zion’s Employee Lane, described earlier, is an automated lane. This section of the report, as well as Appendix A, provide additional information on automated lanes in the ways they are currently being used in national parks. A later section of this report, entitled “Possible Applications of Advanced Technology”, explores additional forms of technology that could possibly be used in the future.

32

Automated Lane Automated Lane at Zion (right hand lane) At least five Parks have implemented automated lanes for vehicle entry at entrance stations. At Zion, eligible users gain entry by use of a RFID tag or a proximity card. At some other parks, users gain entry by swiping a magnetically encoded card through a card reader. One other technology, although not currently in use at other Parks, is a bar code reader. Automated Lanes have several advantages. They can serve very effectively for certain classes of users, such as Park residents, Park employees, and official vehicles – users that do not require interaction with a Visitor Use Assistant. A major advantage in serving these users with an automated lane is a savings in personnel costs. While an automated lane has advantages, it is important to note that an automated lane is not a “silver bullet”. First, some data and anecdotal evidence suggests that the service times for automated entry are no shorter than in a staffed lane. It is unlikely that there would be any capacity-enhancing benefit from an automated lane. Second, a lane needs to be dedicated for this purpose. If limited space is available for entry lanes, dedicating a lane for automated use would be counterproductive in terms of overall entrance station capacity because it would not be fully utilized (there are not enough eligible users to provide a supply of vehicles 100 percent of the time). Constructing an additional lane for automated use is an option that involves cost and time for implementation. Suspend Photo ID Checks National Park Service policy is to check the photo ID of holders of the Interagency Pass, a Senior Pass, and an Access Pass. The purpose is to verify that the individual presenting the pass is the person to whom it was issued and that there is no fraudulent use. This practice does reduce fraud. The author, for example, observed a visitor who attempted to gain entry with the Senior Pass of a deceased individual.

33

Photo ID checks do consume some time in these transactions. At one National Park, when lines become long, the fee collection supervisor will make a decision to suspend photo ID checks and give this instruction to the VUA staff. ADDITIONAL STRATEGIES FOR ZION TO CONSIDER The preceding section described strategies used by other parks, and any of those strategies could be considered by Zion. The following paragraphs describe additional strategies, more specific to Zion, that the park can consider. These strategies vary in cost, time required for implementation, and practicality. Increase Number of Lanes The most assured way to increase capacity and reduce queue lengths and waiting times is to increase the number of lanes at the entrance station. This is a high cost solution that would require a long time to implement (planning, environmental compliance, design, and construction). How many additional lanes would be needed to offer short waiting times during peak periods? Subsequent sections entitled “Future Demand” and “Alternatives” answer this question. Lengthen Employee Lane The effectiveness of the existing Employee Lane in reducing waiting times is often hindered by the long queues. If the Express Lane were extended to allow eligible users to truly bypass a long queue, the eligible users would have shorter waiting times. It is important to point out that while a longer express lane would reduce waiting times for eligible users and would also reduce the length of the queue, it would not increase the entrance station capacity and it would not reduce the waiting time for users of the regular lanes. Dissemination of Pre-Trip Planning Information One of the functions at an entrance station is to provide information on the Park (Park newspaper, souvenir map) and answer visitor questions. The more information that visitors are able to acquire before their trip, the fewer questions they will pose at the entrance station and the shorter the service time. Visitors acquire information from many different sources: travel guidebooks, travel sections of newspapers, National Park websites, tourist newspapers picked up en-route, and other sources. The Park can be proactive in providing information to all of these sources, but the Park has the greatest influence on its own Park webpages. A summer, 2003 visitor survey at Arches National Park found that 31 percent of Park visitors obtained information from either the National Park Service website or the Arches National Park website prior to their visit. Today, in 2012, the percentage is probably higher.

34

Zion National Park currently has a comprehensive set of web pages that provide a multitude of information. The Park’s webpages can be useful in helping prospective visitors be better informed about their choices for fee payment. Highway Advisory Radio Zion currently uses Highway Advisory Radio systems (also known as Traveler Information Systems) to inform visitors. Multiple transmitters are being used, providing different messages depending upon the location. Roadway signing advises visitors to tune in to Highway Advisory Radio at these locations: 1) west of Mt. Carmel Junction; west of Hurricane; 3) east of Hurricane; and between Rockville and Springdale. The messages provide information about tunnel restrictions and tunnel permits, the Zion Shuttle, and – in the case of the Springdale transmitter – parking. There is only one sign presenting information about fees. It is located immediately in front of the entrance station. Many visitors arrive at the entrance station unsure about their choices for fee payment. This uncertainly leads to one or more questions, followed by decision-making about what type of pass or permit to purchase. If visitors were better informed about their choices, questions about fee payment would be reduced and more visitors would make their decision about what type of pass or permit to purchase prior to arrival at the entrance station. An earlier subsection of this report described the benefits of pre-purchase of passes and entry permits before entering the Park. Highway Advisory Radio could also be used to encourage pre-purchases. Appendix B presents a proposed script for a Highway Advisory Radio located at the entrance station. Any location at which Highway Advisory Radio is used needs to have highly visible roadside signing to inform the traveler of its availability. FUTURE DEMAND Under existing conditions, the number of vehicles approaching the South Entrance frequently exceeds the entrance station capacity during the spring, summer, and fall seasons. For this reason Zion National Park would like to increase capacity to relieve congestion. Zion would like to relieve congestion during the peak hour on most days of the year and would like to accommodate an increase in future visitation. What level of future demand should a new facility be designed to accommodate? To answer this question, Park staff Sharon Ringsven and Jim Butterfus met with the consultant team on July 26 and made three decisions. The first decision was to select the peak hour of the day as the analysis time period. On July 7th 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. was the one-hour long period that had the greatest number of vehicles arriving at the end of the entrance station queue. While the time of day at which the peak hour occurs may vary from one day to another, the intent is to be able to serve demand during the peak hour of the day.

35

The second decision was to select a “design day” for the South Entrance Station. Parks typically do not design facilities to accommodate the very highest day of visitation that is expected each year. It is not practical or economical to do so. Parks typically select a “design day” that is anywhere from the 5th highest to the 10th highest day of the year. Selection of the “design day” is actually a decision of trade-offs. How much in fiscal resources does the Park want to spend for entrance station improvements, versus how many days per year is the Park willing to experience congestion at the entrance station and utilize operational measures (such as waving vehicles through the Employee Lane)? Is the Fee Management staff willing to deal with 10 congested days? Eight congested days? Five congested days? To provide a sense of what it means to select a “design day”, it is worthwhile to look at Figures 1 and 5. In Figure 1 the various seasons of the year and holidays are obvious. A “spring break” period, Memorial Day weekend, Labor Day weekend, Thanksgiving, and the Christmas / New Year’s period can all be identified. The days of highest visitation are apparent. For how many of these days each year is the Park willing to tolerate congestion at the entrance station? Figure 5 illustrates the days of the year from the highest to lowest and reveals an inflection point at which the number of vehicles (visitation) jumps for a handful of high volume days of the year. The data for the 20 highest days of the year are also shown in Table 1. The consensus of the assembled group of Park staff and consultant team was to use the 13th highest day of the year as the “design day”. This selection indicates that Park staff are willing to accept congestion and the need to implement traffic management measures on the 12 highest days of visitation each year. Those days include days that occur on the Memorial Day, Labor Day, and Fourth of July weekends. The third decision was to decide for what level of future visitation the Park wants to design a new entrance station facility. If the Park invests in new entrance station facilities, it will want a facility that will serve for years and years to come without requiring additional improvements. What level of future visitation should be assumed to assure a facility that will avoid congestion for several years? It is common for Parks and agencies to say that “we want to design a facility that will serve for 10 years (or 20 years, or whatever time period the agency selects). When an agency does so, it is selecting a “design year”, such as selecting the year 2022. The consultant team suggested a somewhat different approach. That suggestion was that the Park decide that it wants to design and implement a facility that will serve a visitation level of XXX visitors per year. Instead of a “design year”, it is a “design level of visitation”. The Park can state that it believes this level of visitation will be reached in the year 20XX, but the Park can also state that it will continue to monitor changes in visitation and will adaptively manage the facility in response to changes in visitation. In other words, the facility might serve beyond the year 20XX or the facility might require enhancements before the year 20XX.

36

Selecting a level of future visitation is the most difficult question. Predicting future visitation at National Parks is exceptionally problematic. Figure 8 illustrates total visitation at Zion National Park for the past 20 years (through 2011) (Reference 2). This chart gives the impression of great stability in visitation numbers and little change in visitation from year to year. Indeed, if one compares 2010 to 2004, there was no growth in visitation. If one compares 2011 to 2006, there was a modest growth of 2.0 percent per year.

The decision on level of future visitation is essentially an evaluation of risk. One risk, herein described as Risk A, is the risk of designing and installing a new entrance station facility that becomes inadequate within a few years due to growth in visitation and that experiences congestion as a result. An opposing risk, herein described as Risk B, is the risk of over-investing in a new entrance station facility that is bigger and more expensive than it needs to be. One strategy to minimize Risk A is to design a new entrance station facility that has flexibility for future expansion. The consensus of the assembled group of Park staff and consultant team was to use a level of future visitation that is 20 percent higher than in 2011. The recommendations of the assembled group of Park staff and consultant team were presented to Zion Superintendent Jock Whitworth. The superintendent concurred in the selection of the peak hour of the day, the 13th highest day of the year as the “design day”, and a 20 percent increase in annual visitation for design of a new entrance station facility.

37

In terms of vehicles per hour arriving at the entrance station, what level of demand do these decisions represent? On July 7, 2012 the arrival rate at the South Entrance Station during the peak hour was 254 vehicles per hour. Two adjustments to this value are required to provide an hourly design volume for an improved facility. First, July 7 had a 24 hour vehicle count at the South Entrance Station of 2,629 vehicles. This count would rank July 7 as equal to the 18th highest day in 2011. If the assumption is made that the arrival rate during the peak hour is proportional to the 24 hour traffic count, then a peak hour arrival rate on the 13th highest day of the year in 2011 can be calculated. The 24 hour traffic count on the 13th highest day in 2012 was 2,704. 2,704 (vehicle count on 13th highest day) / 2,629 (vehicle count on 18th highest day) X 254 arriving vehicles per hour on 18th highest day = 261 arriving vehicles per hour on the 13th highest day in 2011 Second, the arrival rate must be adjusted to reflect a 20 percent increase in future visitation. Again, an assumption is made that a 20 percent increase in annual visitation produces a 20 percent increase in the 24 hour traffic count and a 20 percent increase in the arrival rate during the peak hour. 261 arriving vehicles per hour in 2011 X 1.20

= 314 arriving vehicles per hour with a 20 percent increase in visitation Therefore, the needed capacity to accommodate peak hour arrivals on the 13th highest day of the year and a 20 percent increase in visitation (over 2011) is 314 vehicles per hour. ALTERNATIVES The existing capacity of two regular lanes at the South Entrance Station is 194 vehicles per hour. An increase in capacity to 314 vehicles per hour could be achieved in a variety of ways that include physical improvements (such as adding lanes), non-infrastructure improvements (such as promoting sale of permits at locations outside the Park), and introduction of advanced technology. This section of the report presents eight physical improvement alternatives for consideration by the Park. Each of the alternatives would provide a capacity close to or exceeding 314 vehicles per hour. These alternatives are presented for consideration by the Park and for the Park to identify which of those alternatives should receive further consideration. Nine alternatives are presented on the following pages – an alternative to make no improvements, plus eight alternatives for improvement. For each alternative a sketch is presented, accompanied by a brief description of entrance station configuration, the capacity of the alternative, and advantages and disadvantages for each alternative.

38

Alternative A would make no improvements to the South Entrance Station. Existing levels of congestion would continue to exist and would grow with increases in visitation. Alternatives B, C, D, E, G, I, and K are designed to serve the volume of traffic at a location between the park boundary and an access road to the visitor center. This could be either the existing visitor center access road or a replacement access road on a new alignment farther to the north. If any of these alternatives were selected for implementation in the same general vicinity as the existing South Entrance Station, it is important to note that physical constraints exist in this area. The Zion National Park sign, which is mounted on a stone masonry column, combined with a smaller stone masonry column on the west side of the road, limit the roadway width to three lanes. The small parking lot south of the Zion National Park sign is an additional physical constraint. Topography is also a consideration. A hill exists to the west of the roadway approaching the South Entrance Station. To the east of the entrance station the terrain slopes downhill toward the Virgin River. A further consideration is the location of the Zion National Park boundary and what parcels of land are owned by the Park, private landowners and the Utah Department of Transportation. Possible responses to some of the above constraints include: 1) relocating the Zion National Park sign farther to the north, such as north of the Visitor Center access road; and 2) removing or relocating the small parking lot south of the Zion National Park sign. Alternatives B, C, D, E, G, I, and K are presented as general concepts. For those alternatives that are selected for future consideration, a more detailed evaluation can be done of the physical constraints and how to contend with them. Any of the Alternatives A, B, C, D, E, G, I, and K could benefit from one simple improvement on the roadway approach. Currently, the approach to the South Entrance Station is a single lane, except for the last 548 feet. When a long queue develops, it can quickly extend to points where the queue affects access to the big screen theater driveways and other businesses farther south. Enough pavement width exists to re-mark the approach for two northbound lanes. Essentially, curb parking on the east side of the approach road would be replaced by a travel lane. This improvement, by itself (if used with Alternative A), would not reduce the number of vehicles waiting in the queue. And it would not reduce waiting times. However, it would have the benefit that the queue would not affect as many businesses. Alternatives D and G a staffed Express and Employee Lane. This lane would be an Express Lane for those visitors who already hold an entry credential. Over 70 percent of entries at the South Entrance are by this type of visitor. An Express Lane provides expedited entry to these users. To be effective, the beginning of the Express Lane must be upstream of the end of the queue. In addition, good roadway signing is needed to clearly communicate to visitors who is eligible to use the Express Lane. To provide a sense of the scale of each alternative, the following table provides an approximate width of the footprint for the inbound side of the entrance station location. Lane widths are assumed to be 12 feet. The width of islands is assumed to be 10 feet; a more detailed design of

39

the fee booths in the future may result in a wider islands. The width of an island separating the employee lane from an adjacent lane is assumed to be four feet. Approximate Width in Feet

Alternative A – Existing Conditions 60 Alternative B 66 Alternative C 82 Alternative D 66 Alternative E 60 Alternative G 66 Alternative I 88 Alternative K 82

What length of multiple lane approach is needed for each of the alternatives? The answer to this question is essentially a task of determining how much storage would be needed to accommodate queuing. This, in turn, depends upon what day of the year (highest day, 13th highest day, etc.) is chosen. Some of the alternatives (Alternatives G and I, and the higher capacity options to Alternatives E and G) have a capacity of 360 vehicles per hour or more. This is substantially more than the 314 vehicle per hour arrival rate that is anticipated in the peak hour on the 13th highest day of the year. Therefore, for these alternatives, no queuing would be expected. To allow dispersal of vehicles among multiple lanes it is recommended that the multiple lanes (either 3 lanes or 4 lanes, depending on the alternative) begin 300 to 400 feet in advance of the entrance station. It is estimated that the arrival rate on the highest day of the year would be 355 vehicles per hour. Because the capacity of these alternatives is more than 355 vehicles per hour, minimal queuing would be expected even on the highest day of the year. The remaining alternatives have a capacity in the range of 287 to 311 vehicles per hour. These capacities are essentially equal to, or slightly below, the target capacity of 314 vehicles per hour. Thus, some queuing would develop during the highest hour on the 13th highest day of the year. To provide storage for queuing under these conditions, it is recommended that the multiple lanes begin 500 feet in advance of the entrance station. This is about the same distance as where the existing two-lane approach begins. On the highest volume day of the year, these alternatives might generate queues of as many as 136 vehicles. If the Park were to extend the multiple lane approach to provide enough storage for this number of vehicles, the multiple lanes would need to begin about 1600 feet in advance of the entrance station. It was, however, the choice of the Park to design for the 13th highest day of the year and accept the fact that congestion would occur on the higher days of the year. This same philosophy could be applied to queuing on the highest volume days and the Park could avoid construction of a 1600 foot long multiple lane approach. It should also be kept in mind that the Park, on these very high volume days, for some of these alternatives, could utilize the same kinds of traffic management measures that are currently being used (waving vehicles through an employee lane) to reduce queuing.

40

ALTERNATIVE A – EXISTING CONDITIONS – DO NOTHING

2 Regular Lanes plus unstaffed Employee Lane

Capacity = 214 vehicles per hour

Advantages

No additional capital cost

Disadvantages

Capacity is well below arrival rate on a large number of days each year. Visitors continue to experience congestion and waiting times on at those times. Queues back up, affecting access to businesses

Fee Management staff must continue to do traffic management on a large number of days each year, with an attendant health and safety risk to employees.

41

ALTERNATIVE B – 3 REGULAR LANES AND NO EMPLOYEE LANE

3 Regular Lanes and no Employee Lane


Advantages

Greater capacity than existing conditions.

Disadvantages

Capacity is slightly below the target of 314 vehicles per hour desired. Other, non-infrastructure techniques would need to be implemented to relieve congestion or Fee Management staff would have to continue to do traffic management on more than 13 days each year.

No reserve capacity to accommodate visitation increase beyond 20 percent.

Inbound emergency vehicles may need to drive “wrong-way” on outbound lane to enter the Park.

42

ALTERNATIVE C – 3 REGULAR LANES PLUS EMPLOYEE LANE

3 Regular Lanes plus unstaffed Employee Lane


Advantages


Employee Lane provides opportunity to employ advanced technology application at some future date.

Disadvantages

Capacity is essentially equal to the target of 314 vehicles per hour desired but there is no reserve capacity to accommodate visitation increase beyond 20 percent.

Additional distance may be needed downstream of the entrance station for merging of four lanes to two lanes.

43

ALTERNATIVE D – 2 REGULAR LANES PLUS STAFFED EXPRESS AND EMPLOYEE LANE

2 Regular Lanes plus Staffed Express and Employee Lane

The Express / Employee Lane could be either the rightmost lane or the leftmost lane


Advantages


Disadvantages




44

ALTERNATIVE E – 1 STACKED LANE PLUS ONE REGULAR LANE PLUS EMPLOYEE LANE

1 Stacked Lane plus 1 Regular Lane plus unstaffed Employee Lane

Capacity = 287 vehicles per hour Advantages


Disadvantages


While a Stacked Lane increases the capacity of a single lane, it does not double the capacity of that lane. Good coordination between VUAs in the two booths is needed for efficient operation.


Option

Using two stacked lanes would increase capacity to 360 vehicles per hour and provide significant reserve capacity.

45

ALTERNATIVE G – 1 STACKED LANE PLUS 1 REGULAR LANE PLUS STAFFED EXPRESS AND EMPLOYEE LANE

1 Stacked Lane plus 1 Regular Lane plus staffed Express and Employee Lane

The Express / Employee Lane could be either the rightmost lane (shown here) or the leftmost lane (with the Stacked Lane as the center or right lane)


Advantages

Provides significant reserve capacity.

Disadvantages

While a Stacked Lane increases the capacity of a single lane, it does not double the capacity of that lane. Good coordination between VUAs in the two booths is needed for efficient operation.


Option

Using two stacked lanes would increase capacity to 437 vehicles per hour.

46

ALTERNATIVE I – 4 REGULAR LANES

4 Regular Lanes


Advantages

Provides significant reserve capacity.

The fourth lane provides the best opportunity to employ advanced technology application at some future date.

Disadvantages



47

ALTERNATIVE K – SEPARATE EMPLOYEE AND EXPRESS LANES

Unstaffed Employee Lane plus staffed Express Lane plus 2 Regular Lanes The lanes could be, from left to right, Employee Lane, Express Lane, Regular Lanes (as shown here) or the Express lane could be on the left and the Employee Lane on the right Capacity = 311 vehicles per hour Advantages

Retains a separate lane for employees

Employee Lane provides opportunity to employ advanced technology application at some future date.

Disadvantages

Capacity is essentially equal to the target of 314 vehicles per hour desired but there is no reserve capacity to accommodate visitation increase beyond 20 percent unless employee lane is converted.


48

As noted previously, Alternatives B, C, D, E, G, I, and K are designed for a location between the park boundary and an access road to the visitor center. Zion National Park may wish to consider an alternative that would locate the entrance station north of an access road to the visitor center (either the existing visitor center access road or a replacement access road on a new alignment farther to the north). This is an alternative that was suggested by National Park staff at the national level who oversee and manage fee collection in an August 6 conference call (see later discussion under Other Applications of Advanced Technology).

Under this scenario visitors would enter the park and drive to the visitor center without encountering a fee collection station. Collection of fees from these visitors would be done while visitors are pedestrians and be collected at some point in the vicinity of the visitor center / shuttle bus stop. This alternative would involve a significant increase in fee collection staffing and require shuttle bus drivers to check visitors for an entry credential at the Visitor Center bus stop. An advantage is that this alternative would offer greater practicality of construction than building a new facility at the existing entrance station location because the existing entrance station could continue operation with no disruption during construction. It is important to note that even though many visitors would be paying their entry fees near the visitor center, the entrance station on the main roadway (north of the visitor center access road) would still need to be three lanes.

DOWNSTREAM EFFECTS The current capacity of about 194 vehicles per hour serves to meter the flow of traffic north of the entrance station. With the two current regular lanes, northbound traffic volume will rarely exceed a rate of 194 vehicles per hour. If the capacity of the entrance station is increased, will the congestion problem simply move elsewhere? For example, will congestion result at the intersection of the main entry road (State Route 9) and the access road to the visitor center and Watchman Campground or at entrances to the visitor center parking lots? A highway capacity analysis was done for the intersection of the main entry road and the access road to the visitor center. Future traffic volumes were assumed (peak hour, 13th highest day of the year, 20 percent increase in visitation). This analysis showed that this intersection would still function effectively with the existing Stop sign traffic control. The traffic simulation model to be developed as a later task in this project will further evaluate operation at this intersection. An entrance station with greater capacity will deliver a larger number of vehicles to the Visitor Center parking lots in a shorter period of time. These parking lots would be filling to capacity a bit earlier in the day.

49

POSSIBLE APPLICATIONS OF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY Zion National Park staff have expressed interest in using advanced technology as one means of reducing entrance station congestion and increasing entrance station capacity. Advanced technology could potentially be used to “automate” fee collection or re-entry to the Park. Seven possible techniques for using advanced technology for these purposes are described below.

1. Barcode – The visitor could pay online for the 7-day entry permit and then print a barcode label. The label could be read at an entrance station gate (an unstaffed lane) by a barcode reader. This would be analogous to an airline traveler printing a boarding pass at home to present at the airport. An example of this technology can be found at www.barcode-automation.com Possible shortcomings: In order to improve entrance station capacity, a separate lane (separate from conventional staffed lanes) would be needed. How is a starting date established for the 7-day duration of the permit? How does the entrance station deal with visitors who have forgotten or misplaced their barcode?

2. Barcode on the Interagency Annual Pass – Pass is purchased at an entrance station, an approved retailer, or at a vending machine and it includes a barcode on the pass. After the purchase, visits to the park would just require the scanning of the barcode at an entrance station gate. Possible shortcomings: NPS policy currently requires that a photo ID be presented with the Annual Pass to verify that the user matches the name on the Pass. This requirement, however, has not been an obstacle to operation of an automated lane at Rocky Mountain National Park (Beaver Meadows Entrance Station) for the past several years. In order to improve entrance station capacity, a separate lane (separate from conventional staffed lanes) would be needed. How is a starting date encoded for the 12 month duration of the pass?

3. QR Code sent to Mobile Phone – Interagency Annual Pass is purchased on-line and a QR code is sent to a mobile phone that can be recognized by a scanning unit at an entrance station gate. Because an Interagency Annual Pass may have two authorized users, a QR code could be sent to two mobile phones. This approach is similar to technology that Amtrak initiated in July to allow passengers to purchase a ticket and simply show their phone to a conductor rather than presenting a paper ticket.

Possible shortcomings: In order to improve entrance station capacity, a separate lane (separate from conventional staffed lanes) would be needed. A significant percentage of cellphone owners replace a phone during the course of a year. How is the QR code transferred to a new cellphone?

4. License Plate Reader – Similar to one of the technologies used by toll roads in which a video-imaging system reads the license plate. The owner of the vehicle that corresponds to the license plate is mailed a bill for the entrance fee for a 7-day entrance permit. If the person that was charged the entrance fee subsequently wants an Interagency Annual Pass,

50

then he could enter the transaction number online and upgrade to an Annual Pass, which would be recognized at the park the next time they enter. Possible shortcomings: In order to improve entrance station capacity, a separate lane (separate from conventional staffed lanes) would be needed. Substantial back-office operations are required to support this type of fee collection. A loss of entrance fee revenue will occur because less than 100 percent of license plates will be correctly read and some bills will not be paid.

5. Text to Controller – This technique uses texting from a cell phone that communicates with a processor at the gate. Through an exchange of communication, the processor would charge the cell phone account for the entry fee transaction and provide the visitor – via text – with an entry code for subsequent visits. On subsequent visits (during the life of the permit or pass) the visitor would text the entry code to the processor that would open the gate. Possible shortcomings: The processors at each entrance station must maintain an up-to-date library of legitimate issued entry codes. In order to improve entrance station capacity, a separate lane (separate from conventional staffed lanes) would be needed.

6. Self-service payment via vending machine – The idea here is similar to what is used for entrance into a parking structure where you enter your credit card or cash and receive a receipt. This technique could be used for purchase of a 7-day permit that would be issued by the vending machine and could be used for re-entry to the Park. Possible shortcomings: In order to improve entrance station capacity, a separate lane (separate from conventional staffed lanes) would be needed. The transaction time would be longer than for a conventional staffed lane.

7. Unstaffed Prepaid Lane – Rocky Mountain National Park’s “automated lane” at the Beaver Meadows Entrance Station is an example. Visitors with a properly encoded Interagency Annual Pass or Zion Annual Pass could swipe their pass in a cardreader to cause the opening of a gate. This same lane could be used to accommodate employees who might use the same or different (for example, RF tag) technology for entry. Possible shortcomings: In order to improve entrance station capacity, a separate lane (separate from conventional staffed lanes) would be needed.

While advanced technology applications could be useful for the fee collection function, it is important to note the other functions of an entrance station. The interaction between visitors and Visitor Use Assistants provides the opportunity to provide information to Park visitors in the form of the park newspaper and park brochure. It also provides an opportunity for visitors to ask questions. In the event of unusual circumstances, park staff can communicate information on wildfires, flooding, road closures, and so forth.

51

The consultant team sought the insights of National Park staff at the national level who oversee and manage fee collection. The team’s primary contact was Amy Pedersen, who is the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative for the Point-of-Sale System for the Recreation Fee Program in WASO. On August 6 the consultant team held a teleconference with Amy and four of her WASO colleagues. The consultant team sought NPS input on the practicality and feasibility of above described advanced technology applications. The team also sought an understanding of institutional issues, NPS policies, and other barriers that might impede implementation of the applications or make them impossible to utilize. The NPS staff shared that all of the above applications are ideas that they have explored. Vendors of these technologies periodically contact NPS staff to inquire about possible use of these technologies in a national park environment. A general observation by the NPS representatives is that none of the advanced technologies described above is likely to have a shorter transaction time than a staffed lane. It is also important to note that any lane set aside for exclusive use by one or more advanced technologies must have a large number of eligible users to approach the throughput of a staffed lane. In other words, if an advanced technology lane has too few users, and is idle for a portion of the time, it is not processing as many vehicles as a staffed lane. Other insights of the NPS staff included the following.

• NPS staff stated that the NPS does have infrastructure in place to support Item 6 – Self-service payment via vending machine. But NPS staff also point out that a visitor, when purchasing an Interagency Pass from a vending machine, does not immediately receive the Pass from the vending machine. Rather, the visitor receives a receipt which must then be presented to a Visitor Use Assistant in exchange for a Pass.

• The NPS staff’s observation on Item 7 – Unstaffed Prepaid Lane is that a high level of

repetitive local use is required for this application to be cost-effective. At Rocky Mountain National Park’s Beaver Meadows entrance station, where this application is used, there are a large number of repeat visitors who come from the nearby Denver metropolitan area.

• Any application that requires the maintenance of a live central database (the barcode

applications were mentioned, in particular) is unlikely to be implemented in the near future.

• Current NPS policy is to require presentation of a Photo ID with the Interagency Pass,

Senior Pass, and Access Pass. This has implications for many of the above applications.

• Selling entry credentials outside a Park has been shown to be highly effective in reducing average transaction time and reducing congestion. The National Park Service now has a mechanism in place to incentivize pass sales by outlets such as hotels.

• For any “self-service” application, user familiarity and experience is important. Users

who are not adept, through experience, can bog down an automated operation. In most

52

cases, Parks have infrequent visitors who would not have an opportunity to develop user familiarity and experience.

• Any advanced technology system that requires use of a credit card as the means of

payment must be Payment Card Industry (PCI) compliant. Meeting compliance requires a lot of oversight. NPS staff also pointed out that acquiring any of the above technology applications requires a contracting component that is a significant burden.

• Any technological application that involves passes that are accepted by multiple federal

agencies must be supported by all of the agencies. The Interagency Annual Pass, for example, may be used at National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service facilities. All of these agencies would have to support a technological application for the Interagency Pass.

• Technology continues to change rapidly. Conditions three to five years from now will likely be very different than they are today. This factor suggests that any new entrance station facility should be designed with the flexibility to adapt to future technological changes.

The consultant team believes that the effectiveness of an advanced technology application is much more promising when it can serve a large proportion of entrance station transactions. At Zion’s South Entrance, the types of transactions that account for the greatest number of entries are as follows. Entry with a previously acquired Interagency Pass – 26.40 percent Entry with a previously acquired Senior Pass – 17.48 percent Re-entry with a previously acquired 7-day Auto Permit – 14.36 percent Purchase of a 7-day Auto Permit – 19.62 percent (14.14 percent cash and 5.48 percent credit card) Because these transaction types have a large number of transactions, these types would hold the greatest promise for an advanced technology application. Based on the information presented in the preceding pages, the consultant team recommends that Zion National Park defer implementation of advanced technology applications at this time. However, the team also recommends that any new entrance station facility be designed with the flexibility to readily adapt advanced technology applications in the future. One example would be the installation of conduits. As advanced technology continues to evolve, an advanced technology application can be implemented at an appropriate time. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to express appreciation to Sharon Ringsven, Revenue and Fee Business Manager at Zion National Park, her staff, and Visitor Use Assistants at the South Entrance Station for their cooperation and assistance. Their help was invaluable before, during, and after

53

the on-site data collection in July, 2012. In particular, the author thanks Christine Kennedy for responding to many requests for information. The author also extends his appreciation to Tyler Hoskins and Jim Butterfus for their review of, and comments on, this document. REFERENCES

1. National Park Service Public Use Statistics Office website - http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/

2. National Park Service Public Use Statistics Office website -

http://www2.nature.nps.gov/mpur/

54

APPENDIX A

AUTOMATED LANES

The following information on automated lanes was prepared in 2005. Additional parks, including Grand Canyon, have subsequently implemented automated lanes. At the time this information was written, different names were being used for the passes to enter national parks. The basic information presented below is still a very applicable description of automated lanes as they are currently being used in national parks. An automated system to process selected vehicles holds the promise of reducing congestion and waiting times, reducing personnel costs, and providing expedited entry for certain users. At least four Parks have implemented automated lanes for vehicle entry at entrance stations. The Beaver Meadows Entrance Station at Rocky Mountain National Park allows automated entry to holders of the annual pass for Rocky Mountain National Park, employees, and vendors. Zion National Park has an automated lane that is restricted to employees. Bryce Canyon National Park’s automated lane serves employees, vendors, and transit vehicles. Yellowstone National Park has implemented an automated lane at two entrance stations for employees and about 50 concessionaire vehicles. Table A-1 summarizes existing use of automated lanes.

TABLE A-1 - AUTOMATED LANES AT PARK ENTRANCE STATIONSPARK UNIT LOCATION TECHNOLOGY ELIGIBLE USERS CONTACT PERSON

Magnetic Card Reader

Holders of Rocky Mountain National Park Annual Pass

Transponder / Electronic Tag Employees, vendors

Bryce Canyon Transponder / Electronic Tag

Employees, vendors, transit vehicles

Dan Cloud 435-834-4200

Zion South Entrance Transponder / Electronic Tag

Employees only Rick Delappe 435-772-7816

Yellowstone North Entrance and Northeast Entrance

Transponder / Electronic Tag

Employees and about 50 concessionaire vehicles

Tammy Wert 307-344-2115

Yellowstone West EntranceTransponder / Electronic Tag, Proximity Card

Tammy Wert 307-344-2115

Rocky Mountain Fall River Entrance Grand Lake Entrance

John Hannon 970-586-1365

PROGRAMMED

IN OPERATION

PLANNED

Rocky Mountain Beaver Meadows Entrance Station

John Hannon 970-586-1365

55

Advantages of an automated lane are that no paid staff are required and that qualified vehicles may “jump” the queue, thus leading to reduced waiting times for those vehicles. A disadvantage is that a separate lane must be set aside for automated entry. Processing of visitors in an automated lane can be accomplished by multiple technologies. A transponder-based system uses a roadside antenna to “read” an electronic tag on the vehicle. This is referred to as Automatic Vehicle Identification (AVI) and is the technology used by toll roads for electronic toll collection. A vehicle simply approaches the gate and roadside antenna and there is minimum delay. Because of the high cost of the electronic tag, this technology is not practical for the typical tourist visitor. It would, however, have application for repeat users such as employees, Park Service vehicles, commercial vendors who provide services in the Park, transit or shuttle service, and others. The electronic tag technology is used at the Beaver Meadows entrance station in Rocky Mountain National Park for park employees, vendors, maintenance workers, and emergency equipment drivers. It is also used at Bryce Canyon, Zion, and Yellowstone. A second technology reads a magnetic strip such as exists on a National Parks Pass, Golden Age Passport, and Golden Access Passport. Swiping the Pass in a card reader would provide access to the Park. This type of system is also used at Beaver Meadows (photos below). Holders of the Rocky Mountain National Park annual pass swipe their pass through a magnetic card reader, similar to those used for credit card purchases. A gate then opens to allow access to the Park.

Photo Credit: Roger Surdahl, FHWA_CFLHD Photo Credit: Roger Surdahl, FHWA_CFLHD

Automated Gate at Beaver Meadows Magnetic Card Reader at Beaver Meadows A third technology is being considered for a new entrance station at the West Entrance to Yellowstone. Yellowstone Park employees have ID cards that function as proximity cards providing keyless entry to locked buildings and doors. The ID card is waved in front of a reader that identifies the employee as eligible for entry to the building or room. Yellowstone plans to use the employees’ proximity ID cards in the same manner for entry to the Park in an automated lane.

56

Service times for automated lanes are likely to vary depending upon the technology used. AVI technology is used at the North Entrance to Yellowstone National Park where vehicles are controlled (allowed to proceed) by a traffic signal indication. A service time of 1 second has been reported. Magnetic card reader technology, as used at Beaver Meadows, requires the user to approach the card reader and swipe the card. A gate arm then opens to allow the vehicle to proceed. Intuitively, service time for magnetic card reader technology and gate arm control is longer than AVI technology. Is the service time for magnetic card reader technology shorter than the service times offered by Visitor Use Assistants (6 seconds for re-entry of 7-day auto permits and 16 seconds for a National Parks Pass)? Although no data is available to the author, it is hoped that data on service times can be collected at Beaver Meadows in the near future. Proximity card systems may have slightly shorter service times than magnetic card reader technology, because precise placement and orientation of the card is not required. If automated lanes provide shorter service times than non-automated lanes, the capacity of an entrance lane can be increased.

57

APPENDIX B

HIGHWAY ADVISORY RADIO

Possible script for use on Highway Advisory Radio at South Entrance Station Welcome to Zion National Park. This message provides you with information about entrance fees to Zion National Park. You have several fee payment options for entering Zion National Park. A Seven-Day permit allows your vehicle re-entry to the Park for a period of seven days for the price of $25. If you plan to visit more than a few National Parks and Monuments during the next 12 months, purchase of the Interagency Pass may provide you a good value. For $80 the Pass provides the holder and accompanying passengers entry to all National Parks and Monuments for a 12-month period from the date of first use, as well as entry to any National Forest, Bureau of Land Management, or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sites with entry fees. U.S. citizens age 62 and older qualify for the Senior Pass. For a one-time fee of $10, the Passport provides the holder lifetime entry to all National Parks and Monuments. An annual pass for the calendar year for Zion National Park only is available for $50. The South Entrance Station accepts both credit cards and cash. If you hold an Interagency Pass, Senior Pass, Access Pass, or Zion National Park Annual Pass, be prepared to also show a photo ID. If you missed any of the preceding information, this message will repeat. Approximate running time, 1 minutes, 45 seconds

Zion NP South Gate Operations Analysis April 2013

Documents

Transcript of Zion NP South Gate Operations Analysis April 2013