National Park Service
Opportunities to Improve the Administration of the Alternative Transportation Program Gao ID: GAO-03-166R November 15, 2002In light of the increasing significance and potential costs of dealing with transportation in the national park system, we reviewed the Park Service's administration of the Alternative Transportation Program. Specifically, we are reporting on the Park Service's processes for (1) ensuring that alternative transportation projects are needed and cost-effective, and (2) evaluating the performance of the program. It is important to point out that in addressing these issues our work focused on the agency's process for reviewing and approving projects. Accordingly, we did not evaluate whether any specific project was in fact needed and cost-effective. In conducting the work, we examined agency files for a sample of 20 projects--10 planning projects and 10 construction projects--that account for 54 percent of the total program funding for fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2003.
The Park Service's process for ensuring that transportation projects are needed and cost effective could be strengthened. Park Service policies require, among other things, that park managers justify the need for a proposed transportation project and its cost-effectiveness through the collection and analysis of specific supporting data, such as an analysis of possible alternatives and operating and maintenance costs. However, this information is not required to be provided to headquarters officials when they are reviewing proposed projects for approval and prioritization. Instead, the agency allows park managers to justify proposed projects by providing descriptions of how they would meet broad agencywide objectives such as protecting natural resources or enhancing the experience of park visitors. As a result, proposed transportation projects are routinely approved and prioritized by Park Service headquarters officials based on these broad descriptions without the benefit of supporting information demonstrating the specific need for the proposed projects or their cost-effectiveness. Only 1 of the 20 project files we examined included information demonstrating the need for and cost-effectiveness of the proposed project. Under these circumstances, the Park Service cannot ensure that its process for approving and prioritizing transportation projects is effective in identifying the most meritorious projects. Park Service officials acknowledge that the approval process needs to be revised and told us they plan to change the process so that park managers will be required to provide this supporting information when submitting future project proposals. The Park Service has not developed an effective process for evaluating the performance of the Alternative Transportation Program. Currently, the agency does not have a process for systematically or objectively determining what, if any, progress the program is making toward meeting its objectives. For example, a major objective of the program is to improve the quality of visitor enjoyment by relieving traffic and parking congestion in parks. However, because the agency has not established goals for reducing such congestion or identified how congestion will be measured, the agency has no objective means of evaluating performance. Accordingly, determining what is being accomplished by an individual project or the program as a whole is based on the subjective judgments of agency managers. This results in diminished accountability since there is no effective way to determine what is being accomplished with the funds provided, and no effective means for providing agency managers or Congress with assurance that the projects are the most effective in achieving the results desired for the program.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-03-166R, National Park Service: Opportunities to Improve the Administration of the Alternative Transportation Program
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-166R
entitled 'National Park Service: Opportunities to Improve the
Administration of the Alternative Transportation Program' which was
released on December 16, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products‘ accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
November 15, 2002:
The Honorable Joe Skeen
Chairman
The Honorable Norman D. Dicks
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives:
Subject: National Park Service: Opportunities to Improve the
Administration of the Alternative Transportation Program:
Almost 280 million people visited U. S. national parks in 2001, many
touring the parks in private automobiles. Frequently, particularly
during the summer months and on holiday weekends, some of the more
popular parks experience traffic congestion. When this occurs, it
detracts from visitors‘ enjoyment of the parks and damages natural
resources as vehicles idle on congested roads or are parked on unpaved
areas when parking lots are full. Each year, as peak vacation periods
approach, prospective park visitors are made aware of these conditions
as newspapers and television present stories and images of frustrated
visitors in bumper-to-bumper traffic at some of the large, highly
visited parks like Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Acadia.
To alleviate these conditions, some parks offer visitors alternatives
to driving their own vehicles, such as shuttle buses or trams. Congress
encouraged the use of such alternatives through enactment of the
Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century in 1998. Among its many
purposes, this legislation authorized funding for enhancing or
developing park transportation systems to improve visitors‘ experiences
and reduce damage to natural resources throughout the national park
system. To administer these funds, the National Park Service
established the Alternative Transportation Program in 1998. Program
objectives include relieving traffic and parking congestion; reducing
air, noise, and visual pollution; enhancing visitor experience;
preserving natural and cultural resources; and improving safety
conditions.
Funding for the program has averaged about $9.5 million per year from
fiscal year 1999--the first year funds were obligated under the
program--through fiscal year 2002. So far, the Park Service has
approved funding for 185 transportation projects in 75 parks. Project
scope and costs vary considerably. They range from small planning
projects, such as a $4,000 project to examine transportation
alternatives
at Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park in Virginia,
to
large construction projects, such as a $2.2 million project at Grand
Canyon National Park to fund the initial design and construction phase
of
a proposed light rail system.[Footnote 1] Planning projects approved as
part of the Alternative Transportation Program may focus on determining
if
a transportation system is needed, while construction projects may
focus
on expanding an existing system or implementing the initial stage of a
large system such as the Grand Canyon‘s. In the case of the Grand
Canyon, a recent study estimated that the entire light rail system, if
it is completed, may cost as much as $300 million, including operations
and maintenance costs.[Footnote 2] A Department of Transportation study
estimated that over the next 2 decades, total funding needs for
alternative transportation systems throughout the Park Service,
including operations and maintenance costs, could be as much as $1.5
billion.[Footnote 3]
In light of the increasing significance and potential costs of dealing
with transportation in the national park system, we reviewed the Park
Service‘s administration of the Alternative Transportation Program.
Specifically, we are reporting on the Park Service‘s processes for (1)
ensuring that alternative transportation projects are needed and cost-
effective, and (2) evaluating the performance of the program. It is
important to point out that in addressing these issues our work focused
on the agency‘s process for reviewing and approving projects.
Accordingly, we did not evaluate whether any specific project was in
fact needed and cost-effective. In conducting the work, we examined
agency files for a sample of 20 projects--10 planning projects and 10
construction projects--that account for 54 percent of the total program
funding for fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2003. The details of
the scope and methodology used in our analysis are in enclosure I.
Results in Brief:
The Park Service‘s process for ensuring that transportation projects
are needed and cost effective could be strengthened. Park Service
policies require, among other things, that park managers justify the
need for a proposed transportation project and its cost-effectiveness
through the collection and analysis of specific supporting data, such
as an analysis of possible alternatives and operating and maintenance
costs. However, this information is not required to be provided to
headquarters officials when they are reviewing proposed projects for
approval and prioritization. Instead, the agency allows park managers
to justify proposed projects by providing descriptions of how they
would meet broad agencywide objectives such as protecting natural
resources or enhancing the experience of park visitors. As a result,
proposed transportation projects are routinely approved and prioritized
by Park Service headquarters officials based on these broad
descriptions without the benefit of supporting information
demonstrating the specific need for the proposed projects or their
cost-effectiveness. Only 1 of the 20 project files we examined included
information demonstrating the need for and cost-effectiveness of the
proposed project. Under these circumstances, the Park Service cannot
ensure that its process for approving and prioritizing transportation
projects is effective in identifying the most meritorious projects.
Park Service officials acknowledge that the approval process needs to
be revised and told us they plan to change the process so that park
managers will be required to provide this supporting information when
submitting future project proposals.
The Park Service has not developed an effective process for evaluating
the performance of the Alternative Transportation Program. Currently,
the agency does not have a process for systematically or objectively
determining what, if any, progress the program is making toward meeting
its objectives. For example, a major objective of the program is to
improve the quality of visitor enjoyment by relieving traffic and
parking congestion in parks. However, because the agency has not
established goals for reducing such congestion or identified how
congestion will be measured, the agency has no objective means of
evaluating performance. Accordingly, determining what is being
accomplished by an individual project or the program as a whole is
based on the subjective judgments of agency managers. This results in
diminished accountability since there is no effective way to determine
what is being accomplished with the funds provided, and no effective
means for providing agency managers or Congress with assurance that the
projects are the most effective in achieving the results desired for
the program.
This report contains recommendations aimed at improving the project
approval process and enhancing the agency‘s evaluation of the program‘s
performance. We discussed a draft of this report with Park Service
officials, who told us they agree with our recommendations and are
planning to implement them. We also requested comments from the
Department of the Interior, but none were provided.
Background:
Visitation rates in U. S. national parks have grown significantly in
the past 2 decades. From a total of about 220 million visitors in 1980,
visitation is approaching 290 million today. As parks host more
visitors, many park transportation infrastructures have not kept pace.
Congress placed increased emphasis on transportation in and around
national parks by passing the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21) in 1998. The legislation provided federal land
management agencies, including the Park Service, with increased
responsibilities for managing transportation activities. Funding for
meeting these responsibilities has been provided through the Department
of Transportation, which annually funds the Park Service to initiate or
expand alternative transportation systems where appropriate, to manage
adverse impacts of increased traffic, and to reduce the adverse effects
of private vehicles on natural and cultural resources, and on visitor
experiences.
Proposed alternative transportation projects are initiated at the park
level. After preliminary screening at the regional level, proposed
projects are reviewed by headquarters officials. A team of senior
headquarters and field officials rate and prioritize project proposals
against broad objectives linked to the agency‘s mission and strategic
goals. These include such objectives as providing visitor services,
protecting natural resources, and protecting health, safety, and
welfare.
Of the 185 projects that the Park Service has approved since the
program began, 131 are planning projects, which emphasize data
collection, problem identification, and analysis of alternative
solutions. The remaining 54 projects are construction projects, which
focus on building transportation systems or their components, or
procuring new equipment such as rolling stock. The median cost of
planning projects has been $75,000, while the median cost for
construction projects has been $419,000. Enclosure II includes
information on the number and estimated costs of projects approved
under the Alternative Transportation Program since it began.
The Park Service Could Strengthen Its Review and Approval Process by
Ensuring That Proposed Projects Are Needed and Cost-Effective:
Among other things, Park Service policies require that individual park
managers justify the need for a proposed project and its cost-
effectiveness by analyzing alternatives, including those that do not
involve construction, and by providing total cost estimates that
include information on operations and maintenance costs. However, this
information is generally not provided to agency decisionmakers when
they are approving and prioritizing project proposals. Instead, project
proposals are approved and prioritized based on generalized
descriptions of how proposed projects will contribute to accomplishing
broad agencywide objectives. Without the benefit of having specific
information about project alternatives and total project costs, the
agency cannot ensure that its process for approving and prioritizing
transportation projects is effective in selecting the most meritorious
projects. Agency officials told us that they agree with our analysis
and plan to revise the process by requiring that this information be
provided to agency decisionmakers when projects are being considered
for approval.
Under current Park Service requirements, the need for and cost-
effectiveness of each proposed project is to be demonstrated by
supporting information and analysis. Specifically, the Park Service‘s
policy manual[Footnote 4] requires park managers to fully explore
alternatives before making a decision to design or construct new
transportation systems or to expand existing systems. The alternatives
are to include those that do not involve new construction such as
improving the flow of traffic through the park by rerouting cars. If
these alternatives will not achieve satisfactory results, then park
managers may pursue new construction projects if certain conditions are
met. These conditions include demonstrating that the projects will not
cause visitation to exceed the area‘s ability to handle increased
levels of visitation, commonly referred to as ’carrying
capacity.“[Footnote 5] To support a project‘s cost-effectiveness, the
Park Service‘s policy manual requires park managers to consider
estimated total costs when planning, designing, and constructing
transportation projects.[Footnote 6] In making this determination,
total costs are to include all costs incurred over the project‘s useful
life, including expenditures for acquisition, construction, and annual
operations and maintenance. In addition, Director‘s Order Number 90 and
a related Director‘s Memorandum require park managers to conduct an
analysis to demonstrate that each proposed project is the most cost-
effective way to meet the park‘s transportation needs. For construction
projects with cost estimates of $500,000 or more, the Director‘s Order
requires managers to consider the purpose of the project and its
estimated costs and expected benefits, then evaluate alternative
designs to determine whether a different design could achieve the same
purpose at a lower cost without sacrificing performance, reliability,
quality, or safety.
To determine whether this kind of key information was being provided to
Park Service decision makers in approving and prioritizing proposed
projects, we reviewed 10 approved planning projects and 10 approved
construction projects that we judgmentally selected from the most
recently approved projects. These recent projects included all of those
approved for funding during fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2003.
We selected the 10 planning projects with the highest estimated costs.
However, because construction projects with estimated costs of $500,000
or higher are subjected to an additional review, we wanted to review
projects whose estimated costs were above and below this threshold.
Accordingly, we selected the five construction projects with the
highest estimated costs above this threshold, and the five construction
projects with the highest estimated costs below the threshold.
Collectively, the 20 projects sampled represented 54 percent of the
total estimated costs of $29.8 million for all projects approved for
the 3-year period. A brief description of these projects is shown in
table 1.
Table 1: Listing of Alternative Transportation Projects in Our Sample:
Park unit/state: Planning projects; Project purpose/description:
[Empty]; Estimated cost: [Empty]; Planned fiscal year funding: [Empty].
Park unit/state: Cape Cod National Seashore--Massachusetts; Project
purpose/description: Develop a comprehensive long-term transportation
plan to propose solutions to present traffic congestion and parking
problems.; Estimated cost: $300,000; Planned fiscal year funding: 2001.
Park unit/state: Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park--
Tennessee[A]; Project purpose/description: Evaluate traffic congestion
and impacts of relocating a major highway around the park as part of a
regional transportation study.; Estimated cost: 400,000; Planned fiscal
year funding: 2002.
Park unit/state: Golden Gate National Recreation Area--California;
Project purpose/description: Reduce automobile congestion by examining
future shuttle system, and satellite parking options.; Estimated cost:
310,000; Planned fiscal year funding: 2001.
Park unit/state: Great Smoky Mountains National Park--Tennessee;
Project purpose/description: Collect park capacity data and information
on alternatives as part of Phase II of a park transportation planning
study to address increased congestion in and around the park.;
Estimated cost: 286,000; Planned fiscal year funding: 2001.
Park unit/state: Great Smoky Mountains National Park--Tennessee;
Project purpose/description: Collect data on biological and cultural
resources potentially affected by a transportation system as part of
Phase III of a park transportation planning study.; Estimated cost:
337,500; Planned fiscal year funding: 2002.
Park unit/state: Great Smoky Mountains National Park--Tennessee;
Project purpose/description: Develop an environmental impact statement
as part of Phase IV of a park transportation planning study.; Estimated
cost: 299,200; Planned fiscal year funding: 2003.
Park unit/state: Keweenaw National Historical Park--Michigan; Project
purpose/description: Analyze potential alternative transportation
systems that will protect park resources and provide safe visitor
access to the park and surrounding areas.; Estimated cost: 300,000;
Planned fiscal year funding: 2003.
Park unit/state: Mesa Verde National Park--Colorado; Project purpose/
description: Examine potential transportation systems, including a
gondola system, to address congestion and safety concerns.; Estimated
cost: 460,000; Planned fiscal year funding: 2001.
Park unit/state: National Capital Parks-Central--Washington, D.C.
area; Project purpose/description: Develop transportation system to
replace a 30-year old system that cannot effectively address congestion
in the nation‘s capital.; Estimated cost: 286,000; Planned fiscal year
funding: 2001.
Park unit/state: Northeast Region--Boston, Massachusetts area; Project
purpose/description: Develop new information services for improving
visitor access to NPS sites in and around Boston Harbor.; Estimated
cost: 266,000; Planned fiscal year funding: 2001.
Park unit/state: Construction projects; Project purpose/description:
[Empty]; Estimated cost: [Empty]; Planned fiscal year funding: [Empty].
Park unit/state: Acadia National Park--Maine; Project purpose/
description: Implement changes to existing transportation system:
Installation of electronic destination bus signs, purchase of bicycle
trailers, and conversion of existing building into bus depot and
information station.; Estimated cost: 481,600; Planned fiscal year
funding: 2003.
Park unit/state: Cuyahoga Valley National Park--Ohio; Project purpose/
description: Construct four station shelters and platforms for existing
system to enhance visitor access and provide a safer environment during
inclement weather.; Estimated cost: 468,000; Planned fiscal year
funding: 2003.
Park unit/state: Cuyahoga Valley National Park--Ohio; Project purpose/
description: Rehabilitate unsafe railroad crossing signals used for a
historic railway through the park.; Estimated cost: 338,200; Planned
fiscal year funding: 2001.
Park unit/state: Fire Island National Seashore--New York; Project
purpose/description: Construct a ferry terminal and support facilities
to improve access to the national seashore and reduce dependency on
automobiles.; Estimated cost: 420,000; Planned fiscal year funding:
2001.
Park unit/state: Grand Canyon National Park--Arizona; Project purpose/
description: Construct a 480-space parking lot and visitor orientation
center to allow visitors to park their cars and take the transit system
to the park, thus addressing current safety and noise concerns.;
Estimated cost: 3,300,000; Planned fiscal year funding: 2003.
Park unit/state: Grand Canyon National Park--Arizona[B]; Project
purpose/description: Select and fund contractor for managing the design
and construction of a light rail system to alleviate increasing park
congestion, and completion of an archeological mitigation study.;
Estimated cost: 2,227,000; Planned fiscal year funding: 2001.
Park unit/state: North Cascades National Park--Washington; Project
purpose/description: Determine feasibility and design of a floating
dock facility, including an on-shore shelter with restrooms and
orientation displays to improve access for disabled visitors and
improve visitor information.; Estimated cost: 432.000; Planned fiscal
year funding: 2003.
Park unit/state: Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area--
California [C]; Project purpose/description: Design and lease or
purchase of a 26-passenger shuttle system, including construction of a
parking area and public restroom to mitigate increased congestion,
pollution, and noise.; Estimated cost: 1,130,000; Planned fiscal year
funding: 2002.
Park unit/state: Yosemite National Park--California; Project purpose/
description: Expand shuttle service in park by procuring additional
vehicles to meet increased demand.; Estimated cost: 3,100,000; Planned
fiscal year funding: 2002.
Park unit/state: Yosemite National Park--California; Project purpose/
description: Develop a new traffic information system to help park
address increased congestion and resource degradation.; Estimated cost:
990,080; Planned fiscal year funding: 2001.
[A] Subsequent to project approval, the Park Service has decided to
fund this project outside the Alternative Transportation Program.
[B] Due to congressional concern about costs, this project was re-
focused to include a report on alternatives to the light-rail system.
[C] During the course of our review, this project was re-scoped into a
smaller project, with initial funding of $175,524 authorized for fiscal
year 2001.
Source: National Park Service project files.
[End of table]
The Park Service policy and implementing guidance covering need and
cost requirements apply to both planning and construction projects.
However, planning projects are often initiated for the very purpose of
collecting data and completing analyses to determine if a
transportation system is needed. Consequently, in reviewing planning
project proposals, we determined if the information provided in the
proposals included plans to study non-construction alternatives and
develop capacity studies, and whether they included plans to estimate
total costs or the project‘s cost-effectiveness.
Our detailed analysis of the 20 project proposals showed that park
managers have often submitted project proposals that describe project
need but usually do not contain information on non-construction
alternatives or park capacity. In addition, while each of the proposals
included information on estimated project costs, the cost information
typically did not include operations and maintenance costs or
information on the cost-effectiveness of the project. As shown in table
2, only 1 of the 20 project proposals we reviewed--Mesa Verde--
contained all of information as depicted by the ’3“ in each of the four
columns in the table.
Table 2: Information Provided in Alternative Transportation Project
Proposals:
Park/project: Planning projects; Need criteria: Proposal addresses non-
construction alternatives: [Empty]; Need criteria: Proposal addresses
park capacity data: [Empty]; Cost criteria: Proposal addresses total
cost--including operations & maintenance: [Empty]; Cost criteria:
Proposal addresses analysis of cost-effectiveness: [Empty].
Park/project: Cape Cod - long-term transportation plan; Need criteria:
Proposal addresses non-construction alternatives: [Empty]; Need
criteria: Proposal addresses park capacity data: [Empty]; Cost
criteria: Proposal addresses total cost--including operations &
maintenance: [Empty]; Cost criteria: Proposal addresses analysis of
cost-effectiveness: [Empty].
Park/project: Chickamauga - regional transportation study; Need
criteria: Proposal addresses non-construction alternatives: 3; Need
criteria: Proposal addresses park capacity data: 3; Cost criteria:
Proposal addresses total cost--including operations & maintenance:
[Empty]; Cost criteria: Proposal addresses analysis of cost-
effectiveness: [Empty].
Park/project: Golden Gate - shuttle system planning study; Need
criteria: Proposal addresses non-construction alternatives: 3; Need
criteria: Proposal addresses park capacity data: 3; Cost criteria:
Proposal addresses total cost--including operations & maintenance:
[Empty]; Cost criteria: Proposal addresses analysis of cost-
effectiveness: [Empty].
Park/project: Great Smoky Mountains - transportation planning study,
phase II; Need criteria: Proposal addresses non-construction
alternatives: [Empty]; Need criteria: Proposal addresses park capacity
data: 3; Cost criteria: Proposal addresses total cost--including
operations & maintenance: [Empty]; Cost criteria: Proposal addresses
analysis of cost-effectiveness: [Empty].
Park/project: Great Smoky Mountains - transportation planning study,
phase III; Need criteria: Proposal addresses non-construction
alternatives: [Empty]; Need criteria: Proposal addresses park capacity
data: ; [A]; Cost criteria: Proposal addresses total cost--including
operations & maintenance: [Empty]; Cost criteria: Proposal addresses
analysis of cost-effectiveness: [Empty].
Park/project: Great Smoky Mountains - transportation planning study,
phase IV; Need criteria: Proposal addresses non-construction
alternatives: [Empty]; Need criteria: Proposal addresses park capacity
data: ; [A]; Cost criteria: Proposal addresses total cost--including
operations & maintenance: [Empty]; Cost criteria: Proposal addresses
analysis of cost-effectiveness: [Empty].
Park/project: Keweenaw - Study of potential alternative transportation
systems; Need criteria: Proposal addresses non-construction
alternatives: [Empty]; Need criteria: Proposal addresses park capacity
data: [Empty]; Cost criteria: Proposal addresses total cost--including
operations & maintenance: [Empty]; Cost criteria: Proposal addresses
analysis of cost-effectiveness: [Empty].
Park/project: Mesa Verde - transportation system planning study; Need
criteria: Proposal addresses non-construction alternatives: 3; Need
criteria: Proposal addresses park capacity data: 3; Cost criteria:
Proposal addresses total cost--including operations & maintenance: 3;
Cost criteria: Proposal addresses analysis of cost-effectiveness: 3.
Park/project: National Capital - replacement of existing transportation
system; Need criteria: Proposal addresses non-construction
alternatives: 3; Need criteria: Proposal addresses park capacity data:
[Empty]; Cost criteria: Proposal addresses total cost--including
operations & maintenance: 3; Cost criteria: Proposal addresses analysis
of cost-effectiveness: [Empty].
Park/project: Northeast Region - new traffic information services; Need
criteria: Proposal addresses non-construction alternatives: 3; Need
criteria: Proposal addresses park capacity data: [Empty]; Cost
criteria: Proposal addresses total cost--including operations &
maintenance: [Empty]; Cost criteria: Proposal addresses analysis of
cost-effectiveness: [Empty].
Park/project: Construction projects; Need criteria: Proposal addresses
non-construction alternatives: [Empty]; Need criteria: Proposal
addresses park capacity data: [Empty]; Cost criteria: Proposal
addresses total cost--including operations & maintenance: [Empty]; Cost
criteria: Proposal addresses analysis of cost-effectiveness: [Empty].
Park/project: Acadia --new bus signs and construction changes to
existing system; Need criteria: Proposal addresses non-construction
alternatives: 3; Need criteria: Proposal addresses park capacity data:
[Empty]; Cost criteria: Proposal addresses total cost--including
operations & maintenance: [Empty]; Cost criteria: Proposal addresses
analysis of cost-effectiveness: [Empty].
Park/project: Cuyahoga Valley --construction of station shelters/
platforms; Need criteria: Proposal addresses non-construction
alternatives: [Empty]; Need criteria: Proposal addresses park capacity
data: 3; Cost criteria: Proposal addresses total cost--including
operations & maintenance: [Empty]; Cost criteria: Proposal addresses
analysis of cost-effectiveness: [Empty].
Park/project: Cuyahoga Valley--rehabilitation of railroad crossing
signals; Need criteria: Proposal addresses non-construction
alternatives: [Empty]; Need criteria: Proposal addresses park capacity
data: 3; Cost criteria: Proposal addresses total cost--including
operations & maintenance: [Empty]; Cost criteria: Proposal addresses
analysis of cost-effectiveness: [Empty].
Park/project: Fire Island--construction of ferry terminal and support
facilities; Need criteria: Proposal addresses non-construction
alternatives: [Empty]; Need criteria: Proposal addresses park capacity
data: [Empty]; Cost criteria: Proposal addresses total cost--including
operations & maintenance: [Empty]; Cost criteria: Proposal addresses
analysis of cost-effectiveness: [Empty].
Park/project: Grand Canyon--construction of park and ride facility;
Need criteria: Proposal addresses non-construction alternatives: 3;
Need criteria: Proposal addresses park capacity data: 3; Cost criteria:
Proposal addresses total cost--including operations & maintenance:
[Empty]; Cost criteria: Proposal addresses analysis of cost-
effectiveness: [Empty].
Park/project: Grand Canyon--design and construction of light rail
transportation system; Need criteria: Proposal addresses non-
construction alternatives: 3; Need criteria: Proposal addresses park
capacity data: 3; Cost criteria: Proposal addresses total cost--
including operations & maintenance: [Empty]; Cost criteria: Proposal
addresses analysis of cost-effectiveness: [Empty].
Park/project: North Cascades--feasibility and design study of floating
dock; Need criteria: Proposal addresses non-construction alternatives:
[Empty]; Need criteria: Proposal addresses park capacity data: [Empty];
Cost criteria: Proposal addresses total cost--including operations &
maintenance: [Empty]; Cost criteria: Proposal addresses analysis of
cost-effectiveness: [Empty].
Park/project: Santa Monica--design and construction of shuttle
system[B]; Need criteria: Proposal addresses non-construction
alternatives: [Empty]; Need criteria: Proposal addresses park capacity
data: [Empty]; Cost criteria: Proposal addresses total cost--including
operations & maintenance: [Empty]; Cost criteria: Proposal addresses
analysis of cost-effectiveness: [Empty].
Park/project: Yosemite--development of traffic information system[C];
Need criteria: Proposal addresses non-construction alternatives: 3;
Need criteria: Proposal addresses park capacity data: [Empty]; Cost
criteria: Proposal addresses total cost--including operations &
maintenance: [Empty]; Cost criteria: Proposal addresses analysis of
cost-effectiveness: [Empty].
Park/project: Yosemite--procurement of additional buses; Need
criteria: Proposal addresses non-construction alternatives: [Empty];
Need criteria: Proposal addresses park capacity data: [Empty]; Cost
criteria: Proposal addresses total cost--including operations &
maintenance: [Empty]; Cost criteria: Proposal addresses analysis of
cost-effectiveness: [Empty].
[A] To be completed in Phase II.
[B] Subsequent to project approval, this project was re-scoped into a
smaller project with a lower cost estimate.
[C] The objective of this construction project objective is a traffic
management system with a small construction component. Thus, although
the proposal does not indicate that non-construction alternatives were
considered, the project itself could be considered a non-construction
alternative to building a transportation system.
[End of table]
In the case of Mesa Verde, the proposed project was for an analysis of
transportation solutions to ease increasing vehicle congestion and
visitor safety concerns in the park. The proposal attempted to
demonstrate the need for the project by including both a discussion of
a possible non-construction alternative--a ticketing system that would
redistribute vehicles to less congested areas of the park during peak
months--and a plan to collect and analyze park visitor capacity data to
identify and quantify congestion issues throughout the park. In terms
of project costs, the proposal stated that cost estimates--including
operations and maintenance costs--would be developed for each
alternative and that a cost-benefit analysis would be completed that
would show the most cost-effective alternative. Including Mesa Verde,
only 5 of the 20 project proposals in our sample provided the
information or plans to collect the information on both need criteria-
-an analysis of non-construction alternatives and capacity studies. In
table 2, these five proposals are those having 3‘s in the first two
columns. Only the Mesa Verde project addressed both cost criteria.
The reason park managers submit project proposals without this
information is because agency officials use a standard agencywide
project application process that does not differentiate between
transportation projects and other projects. The Park Service elected to
use this process to allow park managers the flexibility to describe how
a project meets broad agencywide objectives. However, the Park Service
officials responsible for managing the program recognize that in using
this process, transportation related proposals routinely lack the kind
of key information that is required to be developed and analyzed by
park managers to demonstrate the need for projects and whether they are
cost-effective.
Until this kind of information is routinely provided to the Park
Service officials as they review, approve and prioritize proposed
projects, the agency cannot ensure that it is effective in selecting
the most meritorious projects. Park Service officials acknowledge these
concerns and told us they plan to enforce these data requirements for
all projects to be considered for funding in fiscal year 2004 and in
later years.
Developing a Performance Evaluation System for Measuring Program
Results Would Improve Accountability and Decision-Making:
The Park Service has established program objectives that support the
strategic goals of the agency, but it has not yet developed a system
for evaluating the performance of the Alternative Transportation
Program in meeting these objectives. Without such a process, it is
difficult for the agency to demonstrate if, and to what extent, the
Alternative Transportation Program and individual transportation
projects are accomplishing the desired results.
The Park Service has identified a number of objectives for the
Alternative Transportation Program. These objectives are broad and
include such things as enhancing visitor experience, preserving natural
and cultural resources, and improving or sustaining economic
development opportunities, as well as transportation-related
objectives such as relieving traffic and parking congestion, reducing
air, noise, and visual pollution, reducing or eliminating overflow
parking, and improving safety conditions. While these objectives
provide needed intent and focus for the program, there is no process
for measuring the performance of the program, or individual projects,
in meeting these objectives. For example, a major objective of the
program is to improve the quality of visitor enjoyment by relieving
traffic and parking congestion in parks. However, because the agency
has not established performance goals for reducing such congestion or
identified how congestion will be measured, there is no effective means
of evaluating performance to determine what, if any, progress is being
made. In the absence of specific programmatic performance goals and
measures, evaluating the results of the program, and individual
projects, is based on the subjective judgments of program managers.
So far the Park Service has defined progress under the Alternative
Transportation Program by identifying various administrative
activities that have been completed during the first four years of the
program. These achievements have included such actions as completing a
planning guidebook, issuing transportation bulletins, organizing and
conducting training conferences, and developing a program plan.
However, while these kinds of administrative activities are important
aspects of managing the program, they do not identify what the program
is accomplishing in terms of meeting its objectives.
The lack of measurable performance goals and measures has two adverse
consequences. First, accountability is diminished because there is no
effective way to determine what is being accomplished with the funds
provided. Second, there is no effective means for providing agency
managers or Congress with assurance that the projects being funded are
the most effective in achieving the results desired for the program.
Developing performance goals and performance measures for assessing and
evaluating progress would enable the Park Service to better determine
how effectively program objectives are being met and could improve
accountability by setting performance targets for agency managers.
According to the Department of the Interior‘s fiscal year 2003 budget
request, the department is seeking to redirect funds from lesser
performing programs to higher priority or more effective ones. Moving
to a performance-based approach to managing the program would be
consistent with this initiative. It would also be consistent with the
best practices of top-performing businesses and government agencies as
well as the administration‘s objective of putting greater emphasis on
performance-based management.
Further, developing a performance-based process for managing the
program could also improve the ability of agency decision makers to
evaluate individual project proposals. By showing how their projects
directly contribute to measurable program goals, agency officials could
improve the project approval and prioritization process by more
effectively assessing the relative contributions of competing
proposals.
Park Service officials are taking steps to develop and implement a more
effective performance evaluation system for the Alternative
Transportation Program. As part of this effort, the agency has
developed plans for collecting data that can be used to improve
decision-making and form the basis for developing program performance
measures. In addition, according to a Park Service official, the agency
is examining transit system performance measures used by external
organizations that could be adopted by the Park Service. The official
stated that the agency plans to develop guidance that will include
performance information to assist park managers with the development of
appropriate performance objectives and measures. However, this guidance
will not be completed until the end of fiscal year 2003.
Conclusions:
The Park Service can improve the administration of the Alternative
Transportation Program by strengthening its project approval and
prioritization process to ensure that proposed projects are needed and
cost-effective. To get this done, the Park Service needs to require
park managers to provide key information demonstrating the need and
cost-effectiveness of proposed projects when they are submitted to
headquarters. This should include an analysis of alternatives--
including alternatives that do not involve construction, an analysis of
park capacity data, cost estimates that include operations and
maintenance costs, and information showing that the proposed project is
cost-effective. Currently, this information is not routinely provided
to agency decision-makers responsible for approving and prioritizing
proposed. Providing this additional information would improve the
effectiveness of the Park Service‘s decision-making process by ensuring
that proposed projects are needed and cost-effective solutions to valid
transportation problems.
Regardless of which projects are funded, the agency needs to develop an
effective means for evaluating the performance of the program so that
program and park managers are more accountable for what is being
accomplished with the funds provided. Today, the agency has no
objective means for making these determinations. Performance
evaluation--including the development of performance goals and
measures--is a critical component for measuring progress and justifying
continued program funding. Moreover, moving to a performance-based
evaluation process is consistent with the best practices of top-
performing businesses and government agencies as well as with the
administration‘s objective of putting greater emphasis on performance-
based management.
The Park Service acknowledges that improvements are needed in both the
project approval process and in developing a performance-based
management and evaluation system for the program and has plans for
implementing improvements in each of these areas.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To strengthen the Park Service‘s process for approving and prioritizing
alternative transportation projects and to better ensure that the
Alternative Transportation Program achieves its desired results, we
recommend that the Secretary of the Interior require the Director of
the National Park Service to:
* Implement the agency‘s plans for requiring that each construction
project proposal submitted for headquarters approval include
documentation supporting the need for a proposed project --including an
analysis of non-construction alternatives and park capacity data.
Similarly, planning proposals should ensure that this kind of
information is developed by identifying plans for obtaining it.
* Implement the agency‘s plans for requiring that each construction
project proposal submitted for headquarters approval include an
analysis supporting the project‘s cost-effectiveness, including total
project cost estimates and anticipated annual operations and
maintenance costs. Similarly, planning proposals should ensure that
this kind of information is developed by identifying plans for
obtaining it.
* Implement the agency‘s plans for developing a performance evaluation
system, including the development of performance goals and measures, so
that there is an objective basis for determining whether the program
and individual projects are accomplishing the desired results.
Agency Comments:
We discussed a draft of this report with Park Service officials who
told us they agree with our recommendations and are planning to
implement them. We also requested comments from the Department of the
Interior, but none were provided.
As agreed with your office, unless you announce the contents of this
report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the
report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees, the House Committee on
Government Reform, and the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. We
will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition,
the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http:/
/www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-
3841, or Cliff Fowler, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-8029. Key
contributors to this report are shown in enclosure III.
Signed by Barry T. Hill:
Barry T. Hill
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
Enclosures:
Enclosure I:
Scope and Methodology:
To determine how the Park Service evaluates the need for and cost-
effectiveness of projects it approves under the Alternative
Transportation Program, we collected data on all project proposals
approved for funding from fiscal year 1999, the first year program
funds were obligated, through fiscal year 2003, the latest year for
which projects have been approved. During this period, the Park Service
approved 185 planning and construction projects proposed at 75 national
parks and park units nationwide. The agency provided data from its
database of project proposals detailing the number, estimated cost,
location, and description of proposed projects, as well as whether they
were classified as planning or construction projects, and whether they
were approved and funded. For those projects that had been approved, we
gathered records about programmed funding year and costs, obligated
funds through fiscal year 2001, and estimated project costs through
fiscal year 2003. We analyzed this data to derive aggregate summary
information such as the total number of projects approved for funding,
average costs of projects, and the range of project costs. We reviewed
agency policies, memoranda and directives, administrative documents,
and guidance included in calls for proposals, and interviewed Park
Service and Department of Transportation officials in headquarters and
regional offices, Park Service officials in national parks, and
national environmental organizations. In addition, we visited four
national parks that had transportation projects approved since the
inception of the program, and interviewed Park Service staff,
concessionaires, community members, local government officials, and
representatives of local organizations.
To determine how effectively the Park Service reviews and approves
transportation projects, we selected 20 approved projects for detailed
review from the fiscal year 2001 through 2003 project call. Our
selected projects represented 54 percent of the total estimated costs
of $29.8 million for all projects approved for the 3-year period. We
included 10 planning projects and 10 construction projects to determine
how the approval process was completed for the different types of
projects. For planning:
projects, we selected the 10 projects with the highest estimated costs.
Because the Park Service has an additional review process for
construction projects with estimated costs of $500,000 or more, we
selected the five highest-cost construction projects above this
threshold, and the five highest-cost construction projects below the
threshold.
To determine how the Park Service evaluates the performance of the
Alternative Transportation Program, we examined previous reports on
performance evaluation completed by GAO and other organizations,
descriptions of Park Service objectives and Alternative Transportation
Program objectives, the fiscal year 2001 Park Service Annual
Performance Report and fiscal year 2003 Annual Performance Plan, the
Alternative Transportation Program Plan, Park Service policies and
guidance related to planning, a summary of program achievements to
date, and a critique of the program by an agency under the Department
of Transportation. In addition, we interviewed Park Service and
Department of Transportation officials about the process.
We conducted our work between June 2001 and June 2002, in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Enclosure II:
Alternative Transportation Program Projects Approved
Fiscal Year 1999-Fiscal Year 2003:
Fiscal Year: 1999; Planning projects: Number: 34; Planning projects:
Dollars: $2,941,996; Construction projects: Number: 5; Construction
projects: Dollars: $4,964,754; Total projects: Number: 39; Total
projects: Dollars: $7,906,750.
Fiscal Year: 2000; Planning projects: Number: 40; Planning projects:
Dollars: 4,533,423; Construction projects: Number: 16; Construction
projects: Dollars: 4,140,097; Total projects: Number: 56; Total
projects: Dollars: 8,673,520.
Fiscal Year: 2001; Planning projects: Number: 33; Planning projects:
Dollars: 4,296,898; Construction projects: Number: 19; Construction
projects: Dollars: 8,872,044; Total projects: Number: 52; Total
projects: Dollars: 13,168,942.
Fiscal Year: 2002; Planning projects: Number: 14; Planning projects:
Dollars: 2,307,270; Construction projects: Number: 7; Construction
projects: Dollars: 6,092,500; Total projects: Number: 21; Total
projects: Dollars: 8,399,770.
Fiscal Year: 2003; Planning projects: Number: 10; Planning projects:
Dollars: 1,679,200; Construction projects: Number: 7; Construction
projects: Dollars: 6,536,600; Total projects: Number: 17; Total
projects: Dollars: 8,215,800.
Fiscal Year: Total; Planning projects: Number: 131; Planning projects:
Dollars: $15,758,787; Construction projects: Number: 54; Construction
projects: Dollars: $30,605,995; Total projects: Number: 185; Total
projects: Dollars: $46,364,782.
Note: Project costs for fiscal years 1999 through 2000 are based on
obligations; project costs for fiscal year 2001 are based on
obligations and project estimates; and project costs for fiscal years
2002 and 2003 are based on project estimates.
Average cost of planning project = $120,296:
Median cost of planning project = $75,000:
Average cost of construction project = $566,778:
Median cost of construction project = $419,050:
Construction projects = 29.2 percent of all projects, but 66.0 percent
of project funding.
Source: National Park Service files and GAO calculations.
[End of table]
Enclosure III:
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Barry T. Hill (202) 512-3841
Clifton Fowler (202) 512-8029:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to those named above, Thomas Kingham, Arturio Holguin,
Christine Colburn, Donald Pless, and Cynthia Norris made key
contributions to this report.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Planning projects emphasize data collection, problem
identification, and analysis of alternative solutions. Construction
projects focus on building transportation systems or procuring new
equipment such as rolling stock.
[2] Grand Canyon National Park, Draft Report to Congress on Transit
Alternatives, July 2001.
[3] Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration,
Federal Lands Alternative Transportation Systems Study, August 2001.
[4] U.S. National Park Service, Management Policies 2001, U.S.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service, section 9.2, p. 107.
December 27, 2000.
[5] Park managers are required to identify visitor carrying capacities
for managing public use of their parks (section 8.2, p. 81 of the U.S.
National Park Service Management Policies 2001, December 27, 2000).
[6] U.S. National Park Service, Management Policies 2001, December 27,
2000, section 9.1, p. 100.
