Washington Support Office
National Park Service
U.S. Department of Interior
Fort Sumter National Historical Park Mammoth Cave National Park
Bryce Canyon National Park Grand Canyon National Park
NPS National Transit Inventory
and Performance Report, 2020
Yosemite National Park
NPS National Transit Inventory and Performance Report
Executive Summary
2020
This is a summary of the 2020 National
Park Service Transit Inventory and
Performance Report. This effort:
1. identifies NPS transit systems across the
country,
2. tracks the operational performance
(e.g., boardings) of each system, and
3. inventories NPS- and non-NPS-owned
transit vehicles and vessels and collects
detailed vehicle information.
11.1 Million
Passenger Boadings
66
Systems
Operated
49
Parks
Represented
673
Vehicles &
Vessels
*Reflects systems that operated
during the fiscal year 2020 only.
Of the 66 transit systems that operated, the top 10 transit systems accounted for 90% of the
passenger boardings in 2020. The systems with over a million boardings are located at Ellis Island/
Statue of Liberty National Monuments, Grand Canyon National Park, Zion National Park, and the
National Mall and Monuments. The top parks list has remained relatively stable over time.
The National Park Service owns and operates 13 systems and owns the fleet for 36% of the
systems. NPS-operated systems account for 29,191 passenger boardings—about 1% of total boardings.
Purpose
(by % of transit systems)
Transportation
Feature 12.5%
Interpretive
Tour 16.7%
Critical Access
33.3%
Special
Needs 1.5%
Mobility to or
from Park 16.7%
Mode
(by % of transit systems)
Aircraft 1%
Train, Trolley 6%
Ferry, Boat
38%
Shuttle, Bus,
Van, Tram 55%
Business Model
(by % of transit systems)
NPS Owned and
Operated 19.7%
Concession
Contract 51.5%
Service Contract
15.15%
Cooperative
Agreement 13.65%
NPS National Transit Inventory and Performance Report
Executive SummaryExecutive Summary
2020
F
E
62% of NPS-owned transit
vehicles operate on alternative
fuel,
while 14% of non-NPS-owned
vehicles operate on alternative fuel.
66 NPS Transit Systems operated in fiscal year 2020.
Only 30 reported operated during the pandemic
(March 2020–September 2020).
Passenger Boardings by Park
1 - 1,000
1,001 - 350,000
350,001 - 750,000
750,001 - 1,500,000
1,500,001 - 5,000,000
Performance Measures
Visitor Experience
The majority of the NPS-owned transit system vehicles and vessels are accessible for people
with mobility impairments. 66% of NPS-owned vehicles are accessible to people with
mobility impairments (e.g., require a wheelchair lift).
Operations
The National Park Service partners with the private sector to provide the majority of transit
services. Non-NPS entities operate 80% of NPS transit systems, which account for 99% of
passenger boardings servicewide. The National Park Service owns and operates the remaining
20% of transit systems, which account for the remaining 1% of passenger boardings.
Environmental Impact
National Park Service transit systems mitigate vehicle emissions. The net CO
2
emissions savings
of the 673 transit vehicles and vessels evaluated (excluding planes, rail, snowcoaches, and vehicles
with incomplete data or that did not operate) was equivalent to removing 4.2 million personal
vehicle trips, and 114 million passenger vehicle miles from the road.
Asset Management
National Park Service-owned shuttle/bus/van/tram vehicles have an estimated $125 million in
recapitalization needs between 2021 and 2031. Parks with estimated transit vehicle replacement
costs over $5 million during the next 10 years include Acadia National Park, Grand Canyon
National Park, Isle Royale National Park, and Yosemite National Park.
NPS National Transit Inventory and Performance Report
Transit System Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic
Pearl Harbor National Memorial, HI
Overview
In March 2020, the National Park Service’s (NPS) transit systems initiated pandemic operations. The 2020 national
transit inventory collected information from systems that operated in some capacity between March 2020 and
September 2020. The national transit inventory also queried systems on planned operations for 2021. Across all the
systems, parks were challenged: to address social distancing; to change visitation patterns; to implement operational
changes; and to meet financial impacts while also adhering to local, state, and federal regulation. In addition, parks
had to provide direction and manage safe environments for employees, concessioners, and visitors who use transit
systems across the National Park Service.
In November 2020, the Park Planning, Facilities and Lands Directorate distributed the
Transportation System
Operations COVID-19 Management Practice
and the
COVID-19 Standards Prevention and Mitigation
guidance. These
documents provided a starting point for all systems to establish COVID-19 operations. The Alternative Transportation
Program (ATP) continued support during the pandemic by updating the COVID-19 guidance documents, developing a
COVID-19 revenue impact tool, supporting COVID-19 mitigation funding, and assisting with operation changes.
• Developing and Implementing Operation Plans: In the Intermountain Region, parks and service operators
collaborated on the development of individual park COVID-19 mitigation plans using the ATP COVID-19 guide
and other Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), state, and local guidelines and regulations.
The service contractor submitted the plan to the region. The regional public health staff provided input and
recommendations and the regional alternative transportation program coordinator facilitated comment
resolution between the park, region, and public health staff. Once complete, a park’s transit systems could
begin implementing the plan and operating.
• Guideline Changes: Understanding and adapting to changing regulations and guidelines and communicating
those changes to passengers is challenging. Parks are using park staff, contracted staff, and volunteers at transit
stops to help answer questions and enforce new rules.
• Physical Changes: Most systems implemented the six physical changes recommended by the November 2020
Transportation System Operations: COVID-19 Best Management Practices including, but not limited to: blocking
or removing seats to encourage social distancing and enforce capacity, installing markers at transit stops to
encourage social distancing, installing barriers to protect drivers, providing sanitation stations and masks,
increasing cleaning frequency and using recommended sanitizing products, and opening windows to increase
ventilation. Removing seats and installing barriers are some of the highest costs incurred by the park. Providing
masks and hand sanitizer is a moderate cost.
National Overview Transit System Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic
• Operational Changes: Operational changes were required to maintain service while meeting capacity
requirements. Parks used a mix of responses to address this challenge:
» Reservations: At the park or transit system level, timed reservations were used to limit the number of
passengers who had access to the system at one time. Reservation systems enabled transit systems to
safely operate within COVID regulations while protecting both employees, operators, and passengers.
Reservation systems that were developed in 2020 are continuing in the 2021 season.
» Route Options: Some parks with multiple routes focused transit operations for routes where private
vehicles are not permitted. As COVID-19 restrictions have relaxed, routes that were not operated in 2020
are slowly coming back online.
» Eliminating Stops: By eliminating stops along the route, transit systems reduced risk, particularly to
drivers, by minimizing interactions. Eliminating transit stops or converting stops to “drop-off only” also
reduced the amount of infrastructure modifications required.
• Financial Impacts: Systems that operated have requested reimbursement from COVID-19 relief funds and
transportation fee with mixed results. In some cases, transportation was left out of funding opportunities
to make modifications to protect health and safety of passengers and employees. Service operators and
concessioners also reported difficulties offsetting costs of operating without rebounding visitation to help
recovery.
Ferry boat passengers arriving to Fort Sumter
National Historical Park.
System Case Studies
The following case studies detail the planning, mitigations, and operations of four systems during the pandemic. Each
case study provides an overview of the system, comparison of ridership and overall park visitation, and look at policy,
physical, and operational changes implemented by the park.
NPS National Transit Inventory and Performance Report
Transit System Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic
Bryce Canyon National Park, UT
System
Bryce Canyon Shuttle
Fleet Type
Heavy-Duty
Transit Bus
Business Model
Service Contract,
Non-NPS-Owned Vehicles
Boardings
744,010 (2019)
178,524 (2020)
77% decline
Park Visitation
2,594,904 (2019)
1,464,655 (2020)
43.6% decline
Overview
The National Park Service implemented the voluntary, seasonal Bryce Canyon Shuttle in response to increased
visitation and traffic congestion. On March 7, 2020, the park closed completely to visitors. The park reopened on May
6, 2020. Shuttle system operations resumed a limited schedule from June 1, 2020, through October 18, 2020. The Bryce
Canyon Shuttle began operations on April 2, 2021.
Mitigation Strategies
Planning and Communication
• Developed a communication strategy that
included safety signage at shuttle stops;
informational graphics on buses, visually showing
social distancing and mask wearing guidelines;
and website updates.
Guideline Changes
• Required social distancing: Passengers should
cluster with their traveling companions and social
distance away from others.
• Issued face masks and provided access to
handheld sanitizer spray bottles for first week
until mounted touch dispensers arrived from
being on back-order.
• Increased cleaning schedule and used
recommended cleaners and electrostatic sprayers.
A service provider cleans the interior of a shuttle.
Bryce Canyon Shuttle Transit System Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic
Physical Changes
• In response to CDC recommendations, increased
ventilation by opening all bus windows and running
air conditioners.
• Installed plexiglass to protect drivers and required all
passengers to enter and exit through rear doors.
• Physically removed seats to reduce capacity. Normal
seating for 38 passengers remains reduced by 75% to
20 passengers.
Visitors wait to board the shuttle on Labor Day weekend.
Operational Changes and Staffing
• In a typical year, peak ridership occurs between May
and October. During the pandemic, the shuttle system
operated on a limited schedule between June 1 and
October 18.
• Despite declining ridership, the park ran more busses
at peak times to meet demand and maintain capacity
and social distance requirements.
• The service operator had trouble finding additional
drivers for increased service once the park reopened.
Drivers were hired later in the season.
Safety policy bulletins have been posted on the outside of buses.
Park-Wide Impacts
• During the pandemic, the park observed more
crowding and congestion as more cars entered the
park per hour than parking spots became available.
Shuttle demand was low, and park staff speculates
that visitors did not feel comfortable riding the shuttle
bus.
• To manage crowding, the transit service operator
provided “transportation liaisons” who primarily help
with parking lot managment. During the pandemic,
the liaisons assisted with enforcing face mask and
shuttle capacity policies.
• Drivers and park staff observed visitor use changes.
Some visitors avoided getting off at more popular and
crowded stops and went on to less visited attractions.
Partitions installed between the driver and passenger seating area.
Financial Impacts
• Safety and pandemic response equipment, supplies,
and staffing increased operating expenses.
NPS National Transit Inventory and Performance Report
Transit System Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic
Grand Canyon National Park, AZ
System
Grand Canyon South
Rim Shuttle Service
Fleet Type
Heavy-Duty
Transit Bus
Business Model
Service Contract,
NPS-Owned Vehicles
Boardings
7,644,271 (2019)
1,142,098 (2020)
85% decline
Park Visitation
5,974,411 (2019)
2,897,098 (2020)
51.5% decline
Overview
Grand Canyon National Park has operated a shuttle transit system on the South Rim of Grand Canyon National Park
for more than 40 years. The shuttle system provides easy access to South Rim trails, viewpoints, and other areas of
interest. Shuttle service was suspended for six months from mid-March 2020 through September 4, 2020. The park
began limited shuttle system operations of the Hikers’ Express, Hermits Rest Route (Red Route), and Kaibab Rim Route
(Orange Route) eastbound in fall 2020 with COVID-19 mitigation measures in place. The Village Route (Blue Route),
Kaibab Rim Route (Orange Route) westbound, and Tusayan Route (Purple Route) remain closed.
Visitation to the park remained below average in 2020. Only 15 passengers could board per bus (as opposed to 70
during prepandemic times). Visitors may also have preferred not to use the shuttle system and walked or used personal
vehicles instead.
Mitigation Strategies
Planning and Communication
• Developed a communication strategy that included
information signage at transit stops, transit system
liaisons at key locations, and significant website and
social media updates.
Guideline Changes
• Reduced capacity from 70 passengers to 15
passengers. In consultation with public health and
industry standards, 15 passengers allowed for the
greatest physical distancing and being able to block
off every other row of seats.
Socially distanced passengers waiting to board a shuttle bus.
Grand Canyon South Rim Shuttle
• Beginning on May 1, 2021, in consultation with public
health and the shuttle bus contractor, capacity was
increased to 20 passengers per bus.
• Small groups were permitted to travel together while
aboard.
• Required passengers to wear face masks or coverings.
Passengers must have their own face mask or
covering before entry.
• Provided hand sanitizer to passengers.
• Cleaned buses daily per NPS and CDC guidelines.
• Required shuttle bus staff to follow specific screening
protocols when reporting to work each day.
Seats were blocked off and removed inside the shuttles to enforce
capacity restrictions.
Physical Changes
• Removed and blocked off seats to enforce capacity
and social distancing.
• Installed sidewalk decals, tape, and signage at bus
stops to promote physical distancing.
Operational Changes and Staffing
• In a typical year, peak ridership occurs between March
and September. During the pandemic, the shuttle
system began limited operations of two routes on
September 5, 2020.
• Only operated routes that required bus access/closed
to personal vehicles.
• Limited number of stops to streamline service on the
Hikers’ Express Route.
• Service operator hired staff to monitor key transit
stops and provide verbal guidance to passengers on
physical distancing, operational, and policy changes.
Masked bicyclists use the bike rack before boarding the shuttle.
Financial Impacts
• Implementing mitigations increased operating
expenses for both the park and the transit system
operator.
A bus monitor shares information with passengers waiting to board
the bus and helps enforce the COVID-19 safety policies.
NPS National Transit Inventory and Performance Report
Transit System Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic
Rocky Mountain National Park, CO
System
Rocky Mountain
National Park
Visitor Shuttle
Fleet Type
Heavy-Duty
Transit Bus
Business Model
Service Contract,
Non-NPS-Owned Vehicles
Boardings
764,423 (2019)
409,565 (2020)
46.4% decline
Park Visitation
4,670,053 (2019)
3,305,199 (2020)
29.9% decline
Overview
The Rocky Mountain National Park Visitor Shuttle began in 1978 under a service contract. The system operates along
a 9-mile section of road inside the park and services two main campgrounds, numerous trailheads, and supports
concession operations. Three shuttle routes within the park offer hikers and day trippers access to Bear Lake,
Morraine Park, and other trailheads. The park shuttle system typically operates between late May and early October.
On March 20, 2020, Rocky Mountain National Park closed to all visitors for two months and began a phased
reopening of the park began on May 27, 2020. The park implemented a timed entry reservation system between June
4, 2020, and October 12, 2020. Visitors reserved access to the park during certain time windows with the goal of
reducing crowds due to the pandemic. During those four months, the park recorded about 73% of its actual capacity
in visitation. The park closed due to wildfires between October 22, 2020, and November 2, 2020.
Mitigation Strategies
Planning and Communication
• Developed a communication strategy that included
informational signage at transit stops and on board
shuttles, web updates, and temporary, staffed information
tents at key shuttle stops.
• Contradicting federal, state, and local guidelines created
confusion around implementation and enforcement of
COVID-19 mitigations.
Passenger vehicles wait in line to enter the park via the timed
entry permit reservation system.
Rocky Mountain Visitor Shuttle
• Adapted mitigation and communication strategies as COVID-19 response guidelines and shuttle operations
change.
Guideline Changes
• Reduced capacity to 15 riders from 65 riders. Increased space between riders or rider groups and encouraged
small groups travelling together to sit together.
• Implemented a timed entry reservation system parkwide and aligned transit schedule to match. Park visitation
and ridership peaked daily after 5:00 p.m. after required reservations lifted.
• From May 2020 to January 2021, masks were strongly recommended but not mandatory for passengers.
Beginning in January 2021, face masks were required aboard the shuttle. Park staff and drivers have worn
masks since reopening.
• Increased cleaning and disinfecting and fogged shuttles with disinfectant every night.
Physical Changes
• Installed sidewalk markings and informational signage at transit stops to enforce physical distancing.
Operational Changes and Staffing
• In a typical year, peak ridership occurs between July
and September. During the pandemic, the shuttle
system began operations in time for the summer
season. Service schedules were adjusted to best
accommodate the timed entry reservation system.
• Increased park visitation from local residents
increased shuttle demand.
• Increased frequency of pick ups and drop offs to
maintain service and meet capacity requirements.
• Provided passenger assistance using volunteers as
additional transit system liaisons. Seasonal hires were
reduced by 33% due to reduced capacity restrictions
and availability of park housing.
Passengers board the shuttle system. Masks were not required on the
shuttle until 2021.
Parkwide Impacts
• Park staff reported high stress as a result of
implementing mitigation measures to keep
passengers safe.
• Significant staff time was spentcoordinating service
route schedules with timed entry reservations and
service operators.
Financial Impacts
• Lack of visitation affected the revenue stream.
Passengers crowd around staff working the Bear Lake transit stop.
NPS National Transit Inventory and Performance Report
Transit System Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic
Zion National Park, UT
System
Zion Shuttle
Fleet Type
Medium-Duty
Transit Bus
Business Model
Service Contract,
NPS-Owned Vehicles
Boardings
6,777,100 (2019)
1,532,052 (2020)
77.4% decline
Park Visitation
4,488,268 (2019)
3,591,254 (2020)
19.9% decline
Overview
Zion National Park established a shuttle system in 2000 to respond to the impacts of growing visitation and traffic
congestion in an area that is topographically constrained with limited parking and highway access. The park ceased
operation of the shuttle system on March 17, 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Zion National Park implemented
a temporary shuttle reservation ticket system, which required timed tickets for reduced shuttle capacity to enable
reopening in on July 1, 2020.
The Zion Shuttle operated between July 2020 and December 2020 with COVID-19 mitigations in place, allowing
access to Zion Canyon Scenic Drive while meeting COVID-19 public health guidelines.
Mitigation Strategies
Planning and Communication
• Developed a communication strategy that included
informational signage at transit stops and aboard
shuttles, web updates, and staffing tents at key
shuttle stops.
Passengers board the shuttle. Roof vents and windows are open to
increase air flow aboard the shuttle.
Zion Shuttle
Guideline Changes
• Reduced bus capacity to from 68 passengers to 33.
• From July 2020 to December 2020, masks were
suggested, not mandatory, due to lack of federal
guidance. Beginning in February 2021, face masks
were required on board the shuttle based on federal
guidance.
• Provided face masks and hand sanitizer for drivers.
• Increased cleaning and disinfecting of shuttles and
added electrostatic cleaning procedures.
Traffic cones show passengers where to wait at the transit stop while
remaining socially distant.
Physical Changes
• Installed informational signage at shuttle stops and
within shuttle loading areas to encourage physical
distancing.
• Removed approximately half of the seats within shuttles to encourage physical distancing and capacity limits.
• Installed plastic curtains to protect drivers as passengers used the door near the driver to board and disembark.
• Opened windows and roof vents to increase ventilation.
Operational Changes and Staffing
• The park implemented a shuttle ticket reservation system through Recreation.gov to manage limited capacity
and reduce long wait times at transit stops. Passengers were permitted to board at the visitor center at their
ticketed time and could use the same ticket to hop on and off as often as desired at all up-canyon stops. The
reservation system had benefits, such as helping visitors plan their visit to Zion, and disadvantages, such as
tickets being resold on unauthorized websites and visitors unable to get tickets because demand exceeded
supply. The park has implemented limited, free afternoon walk-up tickets for visitors without a reservation.
• The park increased frequency of shuttle runs to maximize capacity.
• The park eliminated stops along the Zion Canyon route to increase system efficiency.
Financial Impacts
• A lack of visitation affected the revenue stream.
• The minimal ticket fee ($1) is a Recreation.gov service fee. Zion did not receive any funds from the fee.
• Park staff experienced significant increased costs and burden to implement and manage the shuttle ticket
system.
• The park used transportation fees to fund the cost of barriers, remove seats, and provide masks and hand
sanitizer.
NPS National Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020 xiv
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... xiv
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................... xv
Li
st of Tables .................................................................................................................................... xv
Introduc
tion ..................................................................................................................................... 16
Updates in the 2020 Inventory ........................................................................................................................................... 16
Data Collection and Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 17
Inventory Results ............................................................................................................................. 18
Vehicles Inventory Statistics ............................................................................................................................................... 18
System Characteristics ......................................................................................................................................................... 19
Passenger Boardings
........................................................................................................................................................... 22
V
ehicles and Vessels ............................................................................................................................................................ 25
Performance Measures .................................................................................................................... 28
Visitor Experience ............................................................................................................................................................... 29
Operations ........................................................................................................................................................................... 30
En
vironmental Impact ........................................................................................................................................................ 32
Asset Management ............................................................................................................................................................. 34
Transit System Operations During the Pandemic .......................................................................... 35
Looking Forward ................................................................................................................................................................. 36
Next Steps ........................................................................................................................................ 36
Appendix .......................................................................................................................................... 38
Appendix A – Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................................... 38
Appendix B – National Park Service Alt
ernative Transportation Program (ATP) Goals and Objectives ........................ 39
Appendix C – Definition of Transit .................................................................................................................................... 41
Appendix D – 2020 NPS National Inventory System List ................................................................................................... 44
Appendix E – Change in Vehicle Types .............................................................................................................................. 50
Appendix F – Vehicle Replacement Assumptions
............................................................................................................. 51
Appe
ndix G – Air Quality and Emissions ........................................................................................................................... 54
Appe
ndix H – Respons
e to COVID-19 Operational Survey ............................................................................................... 63
NPS National Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020 xv
List of Fi
gures
Figure 1: Systems by primary purpose ....................................................................................................... 19
Figure 2: Systems by vehicl
e mode ............................................................................................................. 20
Figure 3: Fleet system ownership by business model ....
.......................................................................... 21
Figure 4: Passenger boardings by NPS region....
....................................................................................... 24
Figure 5: Passenger boardings by mode ....
................................................................................................. 24
Figure 6: Passenger boardings by business model ....
................................................................................ 25
Figure 7: Number of vehicles by fuel type ....
............................................................................................. 26
Figure 8: All vehicles by age class (years) ....
............................................................................................... 27
Figure 9: All vehicles by age class (years) ....
............................................................................................... 28
Figure 10: Accessibi
lity of NPS-owned transit vehicles .......................................................................... 29
Figure 11: Percent change in boardings from 2015 to 2020 ....
................................................................ 30
Figure 12: Annual CO
2
emissions ............................................................................................................... 33
Figure 13: Vehicle trips (in millions) avoided as a result of NPS transit systems ....
............................. 56
Table 14: Vehicle trips (in millions) avoided as a resul
t of NPS transit systems .................................. 56
Figure 14: NPS transit system carbon dioxide emissions ....
.................................................................... 57
Figure 15: NPS transit system nitrogen oxide emissions ....
..................................................................... 58
Figure 16: NPS transit system volatile organic compound emissions ....
............................................... 59
Figure 17: NPS transit system carbon monoxide emissions ....
............................................................... 60
Figure 18: NPS transit system PM
2.5
emissions ......................................................................................... 61
Figure 19: NPS tra
nsit system PM
10
emissions ......................................................................................... 62
List of Tables
Table 1: NPS transit systems changes between inventories (2016 to 2020) .......................................... 18
Table 2: Systems by primary purpose ....
..................................................................................................... 21
Table 3: Count methodology ....
.................................................................................................................. 22
Table 4: Passenger boardings for the 10 highest use transit systems ....
................................................. 23
Table 5: Number of vehicles by fuel type ....
.............................................................................................. 27
Table 6: Vehicle owners
hip by age class .................................................................................................... 27
Table 7: Response to safet
y and operational questions ........................................................................... 31
Table 8: Distribution of miles and CO
2
emissions by vehicle ownership .............................................. 32
Table 9: Vehicle age for NPS transit vehicle types ....
............................................................................... 34
Table 10: Recategorization of vehicle types ....
.......................................................................................... 50
Table 11: Vehicle replacement costs (in 2019 dollars) and expected life for nonelectric vehicles .... 51
T
able 12: Vehicle replacement costs (in 2019 dollars) and expected life for electric vehicles ....
....... 52
Table 13: Recapitalization totals by year ....
............................................................................................... 53
Table 5: COVID-19 ope
rational survey ..................................................................................................... 64
NPS National Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020 16
Introduction
The 2020 National Park Service (NPS) Transit Inventory and Performance Report communicates the
servicewide outcomes and status of NPS transit systems. This comprehensive listing has been compiled
annually in this format since 2012 and covers surface, waterborne, and airborne systems. The inventory
establishes a working definition of NPS transit systems for the purpose of this document; helps the
National Park Service comply with 23 United States Code (USC) 203(c),
1
which requires “a
comprehensive national inventory of public Federal lands transportation facilities;” and fulfills other
internal needs.
The 2020 inventory is meant to assist the National Park Service in the following:
Measure NPS transit performance.
Capture asset management and operational information not tracked in current NPS systems
of record.
Integrate transit data with NPS systems of record, including asset management data in the
Financial and Business Management System for NPS-owned vehicles.
Inform the National Long Range Transportation Plan, regional long range transportation plans,
and the Annual Accomplishments Report by providing key transit statistics, which can also be
used to track progress towards goals.
Comply with Executive Order 13693, which requires federal agencies to measure, manage, and
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Communicate program information and projected vehicle recapitalization needs.
Updates in the 2020 Inventory
After the 2019 inventory, the Washington Program Office worked with Financial and Business
Management System managers and the Volpe Center to clearly define on-road vehicle types used in the
inventory. Each on-road vehicle included in the 2019 National Transit Inventory was reviewed to confirm
the vehicle type based on the following standards:
Passenger van chassis: Standard or extended passenger vehicle
o Light-duty passenger van: Gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than
10,000 pounds
Truck chassis: Work truck chassis, front cab included
o Light-duty shuttle GVWR of less than 10,000 pounds
o Medium-duty shuttle GVWR between 10,000–25,999 pounds
Transit bus chassis: longer width with no front cab
o Medium-duty transit GVWR between 10,001–25,999 pounds
o Heavy-duty transit GVWR greater than 26,000 pounds
The reclassification may result in different counts of vehicle types compared to previous inventories.
As part of the reporting, the National Park Service developed an online reporting tool using Microsoft
Power BI that compiles the inventory data into a coherent and interactive report. The national transit
1
23 USC 203 Federal lands transportation program: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2014-title23/pdf/USCODE-2014-
title23-chap2-sec20
3.pdf.
NPS National Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020 17
inventory and performance report will continue to be updated annually so that transit managers can gain
insight to transit trends over time..
Beginning in 2020, the collection period was shifted from calendar year (January 2020–December 2020) to
fiscal year (October 2019–September 2020) to better align with other NPS data collection, systems of
record, and reporting efforts.
Data Collection and Methodology
Each year, the same definition of NPS transit systems is used to ensure consistent data collection across
the nation and over time. Only parks with systems that meet each of the following three criteria listed
below are included in this effort (see appendix C for more information).
1. The NPS transit systems move people by motorized vehicle on a regularly scheduled service.
2
2. The NPS
transit systems operate under one of the following business models: concessions
contract; service contract; partner agreement including memorandum of understanding,
memorandum of agreement, or cooperative agreement (commercial use agreements are not
included); or is NPS-owned and operated.
3
3. All ro
utes and services at a given park that are operated under the same business model by th
e
sam
e operator are considered a single NPS transit system.
The 2020 NPS transit inventory is limited to systems in which the National Park Service either has a direct
financial stake or has committed resources to develop a formal contract or agreement.
The following information was collected for the 2020 fiscal year:
Transit system name and description
Passenger boardings
Business model
System purpose
System type/mode
System level safety
Vehicle information including fuel type, capacity, service miles, engines, horsepower,
accessibility, and age
Owner and operator type (National Park Service or non-National Park Service) an
d
co
ntact information
Operating schedule
Participation of a local transit agency in the service
Safety metrics (accident occurrence and property damage)
COVID-19 operation information
For the 2020 inventory, 49 parks provided information. Some parks reported incomplete information
because they do not track the requested service information or they could not provide the information
before the end of the data collection period. Specific to the 2020 inventory data collection process, some
parks reported that they were unable to collect data from concessioners due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
2
This criterion includes services with a posted schedule and standard operating seasons/days of week/hours. Services that do not
operate on a fixed route are charter services for individual groups or exist for the sole purpose of providing access to persons with
disabilities, are not included.
3
This report does not distinguish between a memorandum of understanding, memorandum of agreement, or cooperative
agreement. All are recorded as “cooperative agreement.”
NPS National Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020 18
For the purposes of this report, 66 of 96 identified transit systems operated in fiscal year 2020.
Non-operating transit systems and associated vehicles have not been included unless specifically stated.
Appendix D includes a full list of surveyed transit systems by region.
Inventory Results
Detailed findings of the 2020 inventory are presented in the Vehicle Inventory Statistics, System
Characteristics, and Passenger Boardings sections below.
Vehicles Inventory Statistics
Table 1 summarizes the differences in key results of the NPS transit inventories over the last five years.
Table 1: NPS
transit systems changes between inventories (2016 to 2020)
Note: NPS=National Park Service.
Source: 2016–2020 NPS transit inventory data
Key Findings 2016
4
2017 2018 2019 2020
5
Number of Systems 100 99 95 95 66
Number of Parks Represented 64 65 60 60 49
Passenger Boardings (millions)
• Excluding 10 Highest Ridership Systems
43.6
7.0
43.7
7.0
42.1
7.0
45.9
7.1
11.1
1.1
Number of Vehicles
• NPS-Owned Vehicles
• Non-NPS Vehicles
843
278
565
873
262
611
976
281
695
835
236
599
673
149
524
Systems Operated by Local Transit Agency 13 13 9 9 3
The Akers Ferry at Ozark National Park was the only system added in 2020.
6
There are a total of 96
systems within the National Park Service, 66 of which operated in some capacity, in the 2020 inventory.
Thirty systems did not operate in 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Passenger boardings decreased by 34.5 million, 76%, reflecting closures and limited operations. The
decrease in boardings greatly surpasses the 24% decrease in visitation across the entire national park
system from 2019 to 2020, possibly indicating that while visitors continued to come to national parks, they
did not choose to use transit systems if they were available.
4
The list of systems in 2016 were reevaluated to ensure that all systems met the definition of transit used for the report. As a result,
28 systems included in 2015 were removed from the 2016 report, contributing to the overall reduction in the number of systems
between 2015 and 2016.
5
The information for fiscal year 2020 only includes data from systems that operated.
6
The Akers Ferry previously existed but had not participated in the inventory.
NPS National Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020 19
System Characteristics
The 2020 inventory identified 66 operating systems in 49 parks. Figures 1 and 2 place these systems in the
context of the primary system purpose, mode, and business model. Results for system characteristics in
2020 are similar to the results reported in 2019 except for the number of systems that operated.
System Purpose
Park staff categorized each of their transit systems into one of the five following primary purposes
(figure 1):
22 systems are guided interpretive tours.
22 systems provide critical access to an NPS park or site that is not readily accessible to the
public due to geographic constraints, park resource management decisions, or parking
lot congestion.
11 systems provide mobility to or within a park as a supplement to private automobile access.
10 systems are considered a transportation feature (a primary attraction of the park).
1 system is designed to meet the intermittent accessibility needs of visitors.
Figure 1: Syst
ems by primary purpose
Note: (N=96 systems), DNO=did not operate
Source: 2020 NPS transit inventory data
Transportation Feature,
1 system DNO, 1%
Special Needs, 1 system operated, 1%
Transportation Feature,
10 systems operated, 10%
Special Needs, 2 systems DNO, 2%
Mobility to or Within Park,
8 systems DNO, 8%
Interpretive Tour,
22 systems operated,
23%
Mobility to or Within
Park, 11 systems
operated, 12%
Interpretive Tour,
13 systems DNO, 14%
Critical Access,
6 systems DNO,
6%
Critical Access,
22 systems operated, 23%
NPS National Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020 20
Mode
The 2020 transit inventory identified four modes operating in NPS transit systems. The majority of the
transit systems are shuttle/bus/van/tram systems (37 systems, 56%), followed by ferry/boat (25 systems,
38%), train/trolley (3 systems, 5%), and plane (1 system, 1%) (figure 2).
Figure 2: Systems by vehicle mode
Note: N=96 systems, DNO=did not operate
Source: 2020 NPS transit inventory data
Train/Trolley,
4 systems operated, 4%
Aircraft, 1 system operated, 1%
Ferry/Boat,
10 systems DNO, 10%
Shuttle/Bus/Van/Tram,
36 systems operated,
38%
Ferry/Boat,
25 systems
operated, 26%
Shuttle/Bus/Van/Tram,
20 systems DNO, 21%
Business Models
NPS transit systems typically operate under one of four types of business models (table 2, figure 3).
Concession Contracts: In 2020, 34 of the transit systems operated through concession contract
s
in which a private concessioner pays the National Park Service a franchise fee to operate inside a
park. Five concession contract systems used vehicle fleets exclusively owned by the National Par
k
S
ervice. An additional three systems have a mixed ownership fleet
.
S
ervice Contracts: Transit systems that are owned and/or operated by a private firm use servic
e
contracts. In 2020, 10 transit systems operated under a service contract. Out of the 10 service
co
ntract systems, 5 service contract systems used vehicle fleets owned by the National
Park Service.
Cooperative Agreements:
7
Nine transit systems operated under an agreement in 2020. Only one
of those systems is owned by the National Park Service.
NPS Owned and Operated: In 2020, the National Park Service owned vehicle fleets for 24 system
and operated 13 of those systems.
8
These owned-and-operated systems tend to be small and
7
The National Park Service Alternative Transportation Program uses ‘cooperative agreement” as a general term, encompassing all
qualifying partner agreements (memorandum of understanding, memorandum of agreement, and cooperative agreement).
8
The National Park Service maintained ownership of vehicle fleets for 35 systems in 2020. Eleven systems with NPS-owned vehicle
fleets were idle in 2020.
NPS National Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020 21
provided critical access to a park or park site, were interpretive tours, provided service for special
needs visitors, or were not easily provided by a private operator.
Table 2: Systems by primary purpose
Notes: N=96 systems; DNO=did not operate; NPS=National Park Service
Source: 2020 NPS transit inventory data
System
Concession
Contract
Cooperative
Agreement
NPS Owned
and Operated
Service
Contract
Total
Critical Access 11, 2 DNO 1, 1 DNO 6, 1 DNO 4, 2 DNO 22,6 DNO
Interpretive Tour 15, 10 DNO 3, 1 DNO 4, 2 DNO 0 22, 13 DNO
Mobility to or within the Park 2, 2 DNO 4, 3 DNO 1, 2 DNO 4, 1 DNO 11, 8 DNO
Special Needs 0 0 1, 2 DNO 0 1, 2 DNO
Transportation Feature 6, 1 DNO 1 1 2 10, 1 DNO
Total 34, 15 DNO 9, 5 DNO 13, 7 DNO 10, 3 DNO 66, 30 DNO
Figure 3: Fleet system ownership by business model
Source: 2020 NPS transit inventory data
19
55
1
29
43
87
6
268
49
142
56
25
6
102
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Concession
Contract
Concession
Contract DNO
Cooperative
Agreement
Cooperative
Agreement
DNO
NPS Owned
and Operated
NPS Owned
and Operated
DNO
Service
Contract
Service
Contract DNO
NPS Non-NPS NPS/Non-NPS
NPS National Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020 22
Passenger Boardings
In 2020, 11 m
illion passenger boardings occurred across all NPS transit systems.
9
Excluding concession
contracts and cooperative agreements, NPS-owned and operated systems and service contract systems
reported 3.9 million trips (35% of total boardings) in 2020.
Parks use various methodologies to count boardings. Most systems indirectly record passenger boardings
through ticket sales (6.3 million) and manual counts (3.5 million). Estimated, automated, and other
counter methodologies account for the remaining approximately 1.4 million passenger boardings.
Table 3: Count methodology
Source: 2020 NPS transit inventory data
Count Methodology
Number of Systems Passenger Boardings
Ticket Sales 32 6,225,032
Manual 25 3,452,878
Estimated 3 1,232,759
Other 4 9,159
Automatic 2 178,524
Approxim
ately 90% (9.9 million) of boardings on NPS transit systems in 2020 are attributable to 10
systems (table 4). Three systems from the 2019 top 10 list did not make the top 10 list in 2020.
10
9
A “passenger boarding” or “unlinked trip” occurs each time a passenger boards a vehicle. This is an industry-standard measure
used in the Federal Transit Administration’s National Transit Database.
10
The Yosemite Valley Shuttle did not operate in 2020. Alcatraz Cruises Ferry (Golden Gate National Recreation Area) operated
January – March 2020. The Giant Forest Shuttle (Sequoia National Park) operated November 2019 – January 2020.
NPS National Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020 23
Table 4: Passenger boardings for the 10 highest use transit systems
Source: 2020 NPS transit inventory data
Rank
Park System Name
2020
Boardings
Business Model System Purpose
1 STLI/ELIS Statue of Liberty Ferries 3,257,598 Concession Contract Critical Access
2 NAMA DC Circulator 2,005,653 Cooperative Agreement Transportation Feature
3 ZION Zion Canyon Shuttle 1,532,052 Service Contract Critical Access
4 GRCA South Rim Shuttle Service 1,142,098 Service Contract
Mobility to or within
Park
5 PERL USS Arizona Memorial Tour 595,279 Cooperative Agreement Interpretive Tour
6 DINO Tram Transit 504,000 Service Contract Critical Access
7 ROMO
Rocky Mountain National Park
Visitor Shuttle
409,565 Service Contract
Mobility to or within
Park
8 GRTE Jenny Lake Shuttle Boat 207,047 Concession Contract
Mobility to or within
Park
9 BRCA
Bryce Canyon Shuttle and
Rainbow Point Shuttle
178,524 Service Contract
Mobility to or within
Park
10 GRCA Grand Canton Railway 167,424 Concession Contract
Mobility to or within
Park
Notes: BRCA=Bryce Canyon National Park; DINO=Dinosaur National Monument; ELIS=Ellis Island; GRTE=Grand Teton National Park;
GRCA=Grand Canyon National Park; NAMA=National Mall and Memorial Parks; NPS=National Park Service; PERL=Pearl Harbor National
Memorial; ROMO=Rocky Mountain National Park; STLI=Statue of Liberty National Monument; ZION=Zion National Park.
High-r
idership shuttle systems are typically provided via service contracts, concession contracts, and
cooperative agreements. A greater proportion of the water-based systems are provided through
concession contracts and either provide critical access to parks and park sites or serve as interpretive
tours.
The National Park Service partnered with two local transit agencies in 2020; those partnerships accounted
for just over 2 million passenger boardings in that year. Passenger boardings among NPS owned and
operated systems (13 systems) accounted for 29,191 passenger boardings. Most of these systems provide
either critical access to a site or an interpretive experience for visitors.
Interior Regions 6, 7, and 8 and Interior Region 1 each reported more than 3 million passenger boardings
in 2020, exceeding other regions. Interior Region 1 – National Capital Area reported more than 2 million
passenger boardings. However, if the 10 highest use systems are excluded, each region ranged from 11,000
to 300,000 passenger boardings in 2020 (figure 4).
NPS National Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020 24
Figure 4: Passenger boardings by NPS region
Notes: N=66 systems; IR=Interior Region; NCA=National Capital Area; NPS=National Park Service
Source: 2020 NPS transit inventory data
64k
65k
273k
90k
368k
228k
11k
4.1
3.3
595k
2.0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
IR 6, 7 & 8 IR 1 IR 8, 9, 10 & 12 IR 1 - NCA IR 2 IR 3, 4 & 5 IR 11
Passenger Boadings (millions)
All Other Systems Top Ten
Over half
(56%) of passenger boardings were in systems that use shuttles, buses, vans, or trams, and 42%
were in water-based systems that use boats and ferries. Trains, trolleys, and aircraft accounted for only
about 0.8% of all passenger boardings (figure 5).
Figure 5: Pas
senger boardings by mode
Note: N=66 systems
Source: 2020 NPS transit inventory data
464k
(4%)
536k
(5%)
94k
(<1%)
5k
(<1%)
5.8
(52%)
4.2
(38%)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Shuttle/Bus/Van/Tram Ferry/Boat Train/Trolley Aircraft
Passenger Boadings (millions)
All Other Systems Top Ten
NPS National Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020 25
Less than half of passenger boardings (39%) took place on systems operated using concession contracts.
Service contracts carried 35% of passenger boardings and 26% used cooperative agreements. NPS owned
and operated systems carried 0.3% of boardings (see figure 6). Excluding the 10 highest use systems,
concession contracts accounted for the most boardings (6%), followed by cooperative agreements (3%)
and services contracts (1%).
Figure 6: Passenger boardings by business model
Notes: N=66 systems; NPS=National Park Service
Source: 2020 NPS transit inventory data
661k
(6%)
314k
(3%)
95k
(1%)
29k
(<1%)
3.6
(33%)
2.6
(23%)
3.7
(34%)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Concession Contract Cooperative Agreement Service Contract NPS Owned and Operated
Passenger Boadings (millions)
All Other Systems Top Ten
Vehicles and Vessels
Vehicle Fleets
In 2020, half of the transit systems (34 systems, or 51.5%) operated under concession contracts, of which
5 used fleets owned exclusively by the National Park Service. The National Park Service owned and
operated 13 transit systems (19.6%); these tend to be small and provided critical access, interpretive tours,
or mobility to or within the park in ways not easily provided by a private operator. Systems managed
through cooperative agreements account for 9 of the systems (13.6%); all but 1 used vehicle fleets not
owned by the National Park Service. The remaining 10 transit systems (15.1%) operate under service
contracts; of these, 5 use vehicle fleets owned by the National Park Service,
11
including the large systems
at Grand Canyon National Park and Zion National Parks.
11
The five systems operating 87 NPS-owned vehicles under a service contract are: Adams Trolley, Grand Canyon South Rim Shuttle,
Harpers Ferry Shuttle Transport, Kennesaw Mountain Shuttle Bus, and Zion Canyon Shuttle.
NPS National Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020 26
For the active fleet reporting in 2020:
• NPS owned:
12
o 24 sys
tems used National Park Service owned fleets; 3 systems used mixed
ownership fleets.
o 149 vehicles operated 104 vehicles did not operate. Of the systems with NPS-owned
fleets, one system had a capacity for no more than 10 passengers, five systems had
capacity for 11–20 passengers, five systems had capacity for 20–39 passengers, and six
systems had capacities over 40 passengers. Four systems did not report vehicle
capacity information.
• Non-NPS owned
13
:
o 38 systems had non-NPS-owned fleets.
o 524 vehicles operated 111 vehicles did not operate. Of the systems with non-NPS-owned
or mixed ownership fleets, 8 systems had a capacity for no more than 10 passengers,
three systems have capacity for 11–20 passengers, 5 systems have capacity for 20–39
passengers, and 24 systems had capacities over 40 passengers. Two systems did not
report vehicle capacity information.
In some cases, contractors and concessioners were not able to provide vehicle data due to reasons related
to COVID-19.
Figure 7: N
umber of vehicles by fuel type
Notes: N=673 active vehicles and vessels; DNO=did not operate; CNG=compressed natural gas; NPS=National Park Service
Source: 2020 NPS transit inventory data
12
Three systems did not report: Coastguard Beach Shuttle (CACO), Pinnacle Shuttle (PINN), and Green River Ferry (MACA).
13
Two systems did not report: Headlands Shuttle (PORE) and Watch Hill Ferry (FIIS).
23
33
44
33
1
10
4
1
290
158
35
15
14
6
1
5
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Diesel Gasoline Propane CNG Hybrid
Electric
Biodiesel Electric Other
Number of Operating Vehicles
NPS Vehicles Non-NPS Vehicles
NPS National Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020 27
Table 5: Number of vehicles by fuel type
Fleet Diesel Gasoline Propane CNG
Hybrid
Electric
Biodiesel Electric Other Total
% Alt
Fuel
NPS-
Owned
23 33 44 33 1 10 4 1 149 62%
Non-NPS
Owned
290 158 35 15 14 6 1 5 524 14%
Total 313 191 79 48 15 16 5 6 673 23%
Age of Vehicles
All 149 active NPS-owned vehicles and 524 active non-NPS owned vehicles provided vehicle age data.
Table 6: Vehicle ownership by age class
Notes: N=673 active vehicles and vessels
Source: 2020 NPS transit inventory data
Vehicle Ownership
0 to 4
Years Old
5 to 9
Years Old
10 to 14
Years Old
15 Years
and Older
Total
National Park Service
10
6.7%
12
8%
59
39.6%
68
45.7%
149
Non-National Park
Service
273
52.1%
99
18.9%
19
3.6%
133
25.4%
524
Total
283
42%
111
16.5%
78
11.6%
201
29.9%
673
Figure
8: All vehicles by age class (years)
Notes: N=673 active vehicles and vessels; NPS=National Park Service
Source: 2020 NPS transit inventory data
10
12
59
68
273
99
19
133
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 and greater
Number of Operating Vehicles
NPS Vehicles Non-NPS Vehicles
The non-NPS fleet is decidedly newer. A larger overall proportion of newer non-NPS vehicles suggests
that older vehicles have been retired at a higher rate in recent years. The replacement of older vehicles
may reflect contract language requiring vehicles to be within a certain age range.
NPS National Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020 28
The active NPS-owned fleet, with 85% 10 years old or greater, puts many of the vehicles in the latter
portion of their service lives. This suggests an enormous need for vehicle replacements in the next 10
years. In addition, parks must invest in the maintenance of older vehicles to not only keep them operating
but extend the service life.
Transit vehicles operating in the parks are not used in the same way as urban transit vehicles. Park transit
vehicles are typically not used for the entire year, nor are they used as intensively as vehicles operated in
an urban environment. As a result, they may be in service for considerably longer lifespans, and
recapitalization estimates should rely on park-specific estimates that depend on their specific use (see the
“Asset Management” section and appendix F).
Vessels
The National Park Service has 25 systems that use ferries or boats: 10 for critical access to park sites, 7 for
interpretive tours, 7 are transportation features and 1 provides mobility to or within the park. The
National Park Service owns 11 of these vessels and there are 85 non-NPS owned ferries or boats that
operated in 2020. Vessels typically have a life cycle of 40–50 years. Gulf Islands National Seashore recently
purchased two ferries in 2017 using funds from the Gulf oil spill. These boats were damaged during
Hurricane Barry and did not operate in 2020. Fort Matanzas National Monument has two boats that need
replaced with planned replacements beginning in 2021. The Ranger III at Isle Royale National Park is over
60 years old and has outlived its useful service life. A value analysis completed in 2019 indicates the need
for a new Ranger IV at a cost of $40–60 million.
Figure 9: All vehicles by age class (years)
Notes: N=673 active vehicles and vessels; NPS=National Park Service
Source: 2020 NPS transit inventory data
10
12
59
68
273
99
19
133
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 and greater
Number of Operating Vehicles
NPS Vehicles Non-NPS Vehicles
Performance Measures
The NPS Alternative Transportation Program (ATP) seeks to use meaningful, reliable data. The objective
is to use measurable, applicable, and achievable performance measures and metrics to guide and support
decision making and management of NPS transit systems.
The performance measures below are split into the following sections that correspond to ATP goals and
the NPS National Long Range Transportation Plan
:
visit
or experience, operations, environmental impact,
and asset management. The Al
ternative Transportation Program goals are included in appendix B.
NPS National Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020 29
Visitor Experience
This performance area addresses how park transportation systems enhance the visitor experience. For
2020, the visitor experience performance measure includes accessibility for mobility-impaired park
visitors.
Accessibility for Visitors with Disabilities
In 2020, the majority of NPS-owned transit vehicles and vessels (65.8%, 66 vehicles) were accessible for
people with mobility impairments (figure 10). This proportion is slightly reduced from 2019, likely
because more active and inactive vehicles were added to the inventory this year. Of the 24 systems with
NPS-owned vehicles or vessels, 8 do not have vehicles or vessels that are accessible: this number increased
by one from 2019 with the addition of Akers Ferry (OZAR). However, while the ferry itself is not
accessible, passengers can drive on the ferry and remain in their vehicle.
Figure 10: A
ccessibility of NPS-owned transit vehicles
Notes: N=253 vehicles and vessels; DNO=did not operate; NPS=National Park Service
Source: 2020 NPS transit inventory data
Accessible,
98, 39%
Not Accessible,
51, 20%
Accessible DNO,
66, 26%
Not Accessible DNO,
38, 15%
NPS National Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020 30
Operations
This section evaluates the operational performance of the NPS transit systems by measuring the annual
percent change in boardings over the last five years. In 2018, the reduced number of boardings may be
attributed to a more-intense-than-usual hurricane season and the 2018 government shutdown, along with
impacts from nonreporting parks. In 2020, the reduced number of boardings is attributed to park closures
and limited or no transit system operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Year-to-Year Trends in Boardings
Figure 11 shows the percent change in boardings from 2016 to 2020. In 2016, the list of systems was
reevaluated by applying the definition of transit from appendix C. The result was the removal of several
systems that were under commercial use agreements (CUAs) from the inventory. The removal of the CUA
systems influenced the reported change in boardings between 2015 and 2016.
Absolute boardings continued to increase in most of the prior years, except in 2018 when the absolute
ridership dipped slightly due to the government shutdown and in 2020 due to the pandemic (table 1).
Since the first inventory, parks have acquired more sophisticated methods for counting system boardings
and have refined their boardings estimates over time. A less volatile rate of change may simply indicate an
improvement in the reliability of more recent estimates.
Although the National Park Service had 27.6% drop in visitation overall in 2020, the number of parks
experienced record crowds and welcomed new visitors. Overall, 15 parks set new visitation records in
2020, 5 of those records were set in 2019. Assateague Island National Seashore, Cape Cod National
Seashore, Cape Lookout National Seashore, and Eugene O’Neill National Historic Site had more visitors
in July 2020 than July 2019.
Figure
91: Percent change in boardings from 2015 to 2020
Notes: HAFE=Harpers Ferry National Historical Park; GRCA=Grand Canyon National Park; ZION=Zion National Park
Source: 2015–2020 NPS transit inventory data
43.6
43.7
42.3
46.0
11.1
2.30%
0.30%
-3.70%
9.10%
-410%
-450%
-400%
-350%
-300%
-250%
-200%
-150%
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Percent Change
Passenger Boardings (millions)
Passenger Boardings Percent Change
NPS National Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020 31
Service Schedule
The 2020 inventory did not collect service schedules due to the pandemic. Anecdotally, systems that
traditionally operate during the winter operated between January and early March. Many of the 66
systems that did operate initiated limited operations with COVID-19 mitigations in place at some point in
the year. Please see the special section, “Transit System Operations During the Pandemic.”
Safety
The 2020 inventory included questions regarding safety at the system level. Visitor and workforce safety
are among the highest NPS priorities, and transportation is a significant source of risk to the safety of NPS
transportation system users. Collecting safety and crash information for transit systems informs the NPS
National Long Range Transportation Plan’s transportation safety goals and performance metrics.
In 2020, three NPS transit systems reported a traffic accident; of those, one had passengers on board
during the accident (table 7). None of these accidents resulted in an injury or fatality nor involved
pedestrians or bicyclists. Two systems reported minor vehicle damage and two systems had multiple
accidents with varying level of damage. All three systems reported accidents due to driver error and one
system reported an accident due to the error of others.
Harpers Ferry Shuttle Transport (HAFE): One accident in which the top part of the cab was
damaged, and bus was removed from service for repairs. Another accident in which the bus has
two dents on the driver side but still able to operate.
Zion Shuttle (ZION): Minor accidents required little to no down time. Cost of repairs in 2020
was $1,702.00.
South Rim Shuttle Service (GRCA). A few minor accidents occurred; some were due to driver
error and some due to the error of others.
Table 7: Res
ponse to safety and operational q
uestions
Source: 2020 NPS transit inventory data
Park System Name
Passengers
on Board
Injuries or
Fatalities
Bicycles or
Pedestrians
Accident
Occurred
on Route
Result of
Driver
Error
Real
Property
Damaged
HAFE
Harpers Ferry Shuttle
Transport
No No No No Yes No
GRCA
South Rim Shuttle
Service
Yes No No Yes Yes No
ZION Zion Canyon Shuttle No No No Yes Yes No
NPS National Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020 32
Environmental Impact
Since 2017, the transit inventory uses the US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Motor Vehicle
Emissions Simulator (MOVES) for estimating NPS transit vehicle emissions.
14
The Motor Vehicle
Emissions Simulator is a state-of-the-science emissions modeling software that uses preloaded
measurement data to estimate emissions rates for different vehicle types, model years, fuel types, and road
types across several Clean Air Act criteria pollutants “from the bottom-up” for both on- and off-road
vehicles, including waterborne vessels. MOVES software is also the regulatory standard for emissions
inventory analyses under the Clean Air Act and related legislation.
15
MOVES software bases emissions
estimates on observations of actual vehicle operations.
This section describes the results of the 2020 emissions analysis with respect to carbon dioxide (CO
2
). The
results for the other criteria pollutants—nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and
particulate matter—as well as a detailed description of the analysis methodology, are presented in
appendix E. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, emitting activity significantly decreased (i.e., a decrease in
vehicle miles traveled; VMT) in the 2020 system inventory. In addition, some systems were captured in
the 2019 inventory but not in 2020 and vice versa. Thus, the 2020 results differ from 2019. As data
collection becomes more consistent over the next few years, these results are expected to stabilize and
results may be more directly compared year to year.
Annual CO
2
Emissions
Figure 12 shows the results of MOVES CO
2
emissions modeling for transit systems, aggregated to the
regional level and split by ownership. Across all regions, NPS-owned transit fleets emitted just under
2,000 metric tons of CO
2
in 2020. Regions 8, 9, 10, and 12 emitted the greatest amount of CO
2
, with a large
number of transit systems in each region and many operating in rural and hilly areas. In contrast, a
substantial part of the National Capital Area’s transit system’s operations occurs on relatively flat urban
streets. Table 8 shows the distribution of vehicles, miles traveled, and associated CO
2
emissions.
Table 8: D
istribution of miles and CO
2
emissions by vehicle ownership
Notes: N=673
16
vehicles and vessels
Source: 2020 NPS transit inventory data
Ownership
Vehicles
(number)
Vehicles
(percent)
Miles
Traveled
Miles
(percent)
CO
2
(metric tons)
CO
2
(percent)
NPS Owned 149 22% 1,020,698 30% 1,947.27 15%
Non-NPS Owned 524 78% 2,388,012 70% 10,926.2 85%
Total: 673 100% 3,408,710 100% 12,873.5 100%
14
This national transit inventory uses version MOVES2014b, which includes updates published in August 2018.
15
“Official Release of the MOVES2014 Motor Vehicle Emissions Model for SIPs and Transportation Conformity.” Federal Register
79:194 (October 7, 2014) p. 60343. Available from the Government Publishing Office at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-
10-07/pdf/2014-23258.
pdf.
16
Due to data gaps, an N of 673 vehicles is used for the emissions analysis. In addition to excluding vehicles with missing data, snow
coach, aircraft, and rail operations are not analyzed in the emissions analysis. This data also only counts vehicles that operated
in 2020.
NPS National Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020 33
Figure 12: Annual CO
2
emissions
Source: 2020 NPS transit inventory data
2.91
1,200.11
717.67
0.68
25.9
4,475.56
1765.82
2.02
1669.49
2,179.80
734.07
99.47
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
IR 8, 9, 10, 12 IR 6, 7, 8 IR 3 IR 1 IR 1 - NCA IR 2 - SAG IR 11
Emissions (metric tons)
NPS Vehicles Non-NPS Vehicles
Diverted Passenger Vehicle Trips and CO
2
Emissions Avoided
The benefits of using transit include:
reduction of the number of vehicle trips in parks,
congestion relief on park roads by carrying more people per square foot of road space,
elimination of associated fuel-inefficient driving behaviors like extended idling and stop-and-go,
potential to influence how visitors spend their time in the park, and
removal of long lines of cars from viewsheds.
Servicewide, an estimated 4.2 million private vehicle trips were eliminated in 2020 with a reduction in of
nearly 44,000 metric tons of CO
2
emissions; without transit service, there would have meant an additional
114 million miles driven in private vehicles. Transit systems emitted 12,874 metric tons of CO
2
in 2020. As
stated previously, regions with high transit use and more boardings divert more personal vehicles from
the road.
NPS National Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020 34
Asset Management
Performance measurement for assets helps support the long-term financial viability of the transit systems
through tracking the age of NPS-owned vehicle fleets and estimating fleet recapitalization costs. In this
context, “vehicles” refers only to on-road motorized vehicles and excludes nonroad transportation, such
as ferries, locomotives, snow coaches, and aircraft. Any of those described in table 9are shown only for
reference and were not analyzed for recapitalization estimates.
Average Age of NPS Vehicles
Table 9 reports the aggregate average age for NPS-owned transit vehicles servicewide and includes all
NPS-owned vehicles regardless of whether they operated or not in 2020. The average age of each NPS
vehicle type is below the service life for most vehicle types, but many categories include vehicles older
than their typical lifespan. In the case of medium-duty transit, the average age exceeds the service life.
Notably, 39 vehicles will exceed their service life in next three years; of these, 35 are heavy-duty transit or
medium-duty shuttles. On average, heavy- and medium-duty shuttle buses are the newest vehicles in the
NPS-owned fleet, which is reflective of the fleet replacements occurring at Glacier, Grand Canyon,
Yosemite, and Zion National Parks.
Table 9: V
ehicle age for NPS transit vehicle types
17
Notes: N=220 vehicles and vessels
18
; N/A=not applicable
Source: 2020 NPS transit inventory data
Vehicle Type
Average
Age
Number of
Vehicles
Service Life
(years)
Number of
Vehicles Beyond
Servi
ce Life
6-12 Pax Electric Tram 3 2 11 0
Passenger Van 13.1 29 10 25
Light-Duty Shuttle 8.57 7 15 1
Medium-Duty Shuttle 10.29 38 15 6
Medium-Duty Transit 18.29 34 18 26
Heavy-Duty Transit 11.38 69 18 3
Ferry/Boat 20.80 15 N/A N/A
Train/Streetcar 43 4 N/A N/A
School Bus 15.14 7 18 1
Snowmobile/Snow Coach 52 12 N/A N/A
Van 6.5 2 10 0
Total: – 253 – 62
17
The recategorization of the NPS fleet vehicles described in the “Updates in the 2020 Inventory" section resulted in new categories
and shifting vehicles to more appropriate vehicle type categories compared to past inventories.
18
The GLAC Red Bus Tours vehicles were excluded from this analysis, as they have been extensively retrofitted during their 80 plus
years in service.
NPS National Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020 35
Estimated Vehicle Recapitalization Needs
Estimates of NPS-owned vehicle replacement needs begin with vehicle ages, along with the standard
replacement costs and service life assumptions shown in appendix F. Each park is responsible for
determining when a vehicle needs to be replaced, which is dependent on funding availability and other
factors. Service life is highly dependent on vehicle use, in addition to vehicle age; therefore, more detailed
information is needed before determining if a vehicle is truly due for replacement.
Based on an analysis using the methodology outlined in appendix F, the National Park Service is facing a
large fleet replacement need over the next 10 years and an estimated $126.5 million in NPS-owned transit
vehicle capital costs. These fleet replacements include legacy transit systems at Acadia, Yosemite, and
Grand Canyon National Parks. Projected costs are calculated in 2020 dollars and may vary from year to
year as vehicles from different systems are replaced or rehabilitated to extend their service life.
Transit System Operations During the Pandemic
In March 2020, the National Park Service’s transit systems initiated pandemic operations. The 2020
national transit inventory collected information from systems that operated in some capacity between
March 2020 and September 2020. The national transit inventory also queried systems on planned
operations for 2021. Across all the systems, parks were challenged: to address social distancing, to change
visitation patterns, to implement operational changes, and to meet financial impacts while also adhering
to local, state, and federal regulation. In addition, parks had to provide direction and manage safe
environments for employees, concessioners, and visitors who use transit systems across the National
Park Service.
In November 2020, the Park Planning, Facilities and Lands Directorate distributed the “Transportation
System Operations COVID-19 Management Practice” and the “COVID-19 Standards Prevention and
Mitigation” guidance. These documents provided a starting point for all systems to establish COVID-19
operations. The Washington Program Office continued support during the pandemic by updating the
COVID-19 guidance documents, developing a COVID-19 revenue impact tool, supporting COVID-19
mitigation funding, and assisting with operation changes.
• Developing and Implementing Operation Plans: In the Intermountain Region, parks and
service operators collaborated on the development of individual park COVID-19 mitigation plans
using the Alternative Transportation Program COVID-19 guide and other Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), state, and local guidelines and regulations. The service contractor
submitted the plan to the region. The regional public health staff provided input and
recommendations and the regional alternative transportation program coordinator facilitated
comment resolution between the park, region, and public health staff. Once complete, a park’s
transit systems could begin implementing the plan and operating.
• Guideline Changes: Understanding and adapting to changing regulations and guidelines and
communicating those changes to passengers is challenging. Parks are using park staff, contracted
staff, and volunteers at transit stops to help answer questions and enforce new rules.
• Physical Changes: Most systems implemented the six physical changes recommended by the
November 2020 Transportation System Operations: COVID-19 Best Management Practices
including, but not limited to, blocking or removing seats to encourage social distancing and
enforce capacity; installing markers at transit stops to encourage social distancing; installing
barriers to protect drivers; providing sanitation stations and masks; increasing cleaning frequency
and using recommended sanitizing products; and opening windows to increase ventilation.
Removing seats and installing barriers are some of the highest costs incurred by the park.
Providing masks and hand sanitizer is a moderate cost.
• Operational Changes: Operational changes were required to maintain service while meeting
capacity requirements. Parks used a mix of responses to address this challenge:
o Reservations: At the park or transit system level, timed reservations were used to limit
the number of passengers who had access to the system at one time. Reservation systems
NPS National Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020 36
enabled transit systems to safely operate within COVID-19 regulations while protecting
employees, operators, and passengers. Reservation systems that were developed in 2020
are continuing in the 2021 season.
o Route Options: Some parks with multiple routes focused transit operations for routes
where private vehicles are not permitted. As COVID-19 restrictions have relaxed, route
s
that were not operated in 2020 are slowly coming back online.
o Eliminating Stops: By eliminating stops along the route, transit systems reduced risk,
particularly to drivers, by minimizing interactions. Eliminating transit stops or converting
stops to “drop-off only” also reduced the amount of infrastructure modifications
required.
• Financial Impacts: Systems that operated have requested reimbursement from COVID-19 relief
funds and transportation fees with mixed results. In some cases, transportation was left out of
funding opportunities to make modifications to protect health and safety of passengers and
employees. Service operators and concessioners also reported difficulties offsetting costs of
operating without rebounding visitation to help recovery
.
Next Steps
The inventory continues to provide essential information on NPS transit systems at the park, regional,
and national levels.
This effort allows stakeholders to understand the basic characteristics of NPS transit
systems, including how many visitors are served, the number and types of transit systems, vehicle service
life and fuel types, the business models under which these systems operate, and performance measures
(including emissions).
The transit inventory collects annual operational information to supplement other data initiatives that
focus on NPS fixed real property assets. This effort provides a consistent platform to efficiently gather
information that can be compared through time and enables the National Park Service to examine
disparate transit systems as a whole and evaluate their benefits and impacts. As visitation at national parks
increases, transit systems remain important assets for reducing resource impacts from personal vehicles
while improving access and enhancing the visitor experience.
NPS National Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020 37
The following lessons will be incorporated to improve future transit data calls:
Continued Coordination with Relevant NPS Stakeholders: Continue sharing data and
identifying ways the transit data can be used to support program missions, goals, and outcome
s
acro
ss the National Park Service. Consider stronger coordination with concessions and service
contracts to include data requirements in new contracts.
Create New and/or Refine Existing Data Elements: Continue to refine the number of fields i
n
t
he data call, adding or removing data fields, as necessary, to gather only necessary information
while limiting the burden of data collection on the park staff
.
I
mprove the Data Collection Online Tool: The online data collection tool moved to the
Microsoft PowerApps platform in 2019, and user interface enhancements were updated for th
e
2
020 inventory. A limitation of this tool is that it is restricted to NPS users only and concessioner
s
a
re not able to access the tool. The option for concessioners to submit their data via spreadsheet
was provided for 2020. The interactive web report was also updated for the 2020 analysis and
report and efforts to include all historic inventory data in the web report are ongoing. The
transition also opens opportunities to incorporate data from the transit inventory into the
Alternative Transportation Service Lifecycle Asset Management dashboard and to connect to the
Financial and Business Management System.
Continue to Expand Performance Measures Analysis: Continue including additional
performance measures to track progress of NPS transit systems over time and include in thi
s
r
eport. Collaborate with other NPS planning efforts to provide measurable data. Shift safet
y
q
uestions to a quantitative input.
Communicate the Benefit and Impact of NPS Transit Systems to Visitors: Conside
r
co
mmunicating to visitors how their choice to use transit has a positive impact on park resource
s
t
hrough reducing congestion and emissions from private vehicles. The positive impacts of transit
use could be communicated in a variety of ways, such as consistent signage throughout the
national park system, through social media, or on the NPS website.
Consider Multimodal Connections to Transit: The transit inventory could be expanded t
o
include connections to multiuse trails. Considering opportunities for bicycling and walking in
national parks and connections to transit could give a better picture of the opportunities for
exploring national parks without using a private vehicle.
Update the recapitalization analysis:This year, the recapitalization analysis was used to
generate real data from parks and create a baseline recapitalization plan. This baseline
recapitalization effort will better inform future inventory and analysis efforts. Use real data fro
m
p
arks, project management information system statements, and the Parks Transportation
Allocation and Tracking System to update cost assumptions on a per-vehicle (attached to vehicle
identification numbers), per-system basis. Consider including recapitalization questions in the
inventory data collection process. Integrate the national transit inventory with the developing
vehicle health Index.
Revisit transit definition (appendix C) to reflect new laws and regulations.
NPS National Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020 38
Appendix
Appendix A – Acknowledgments
The National Park Service would like to thank the numerous NPS transit system contacts who graciously
provided their time, knowledge, and guidance in the development of this inventory and new web
application.
Special thanks to each park and park contact who provided data for the 2020 inventory year. A list of each
park contact is included in appendix D.
Interior Region 1 – National Capital Area
David Daddio
National Capital Region
Interio
r Region 1
Amanda Jones
Northeast Region
Int
erior Region 2 – South Atlantic Group
Lee Edwards
Southeast Region
Int
erior Region 3, 4, and 5
Mark Mitts
Midwest Region
Interior Regions 6, 7, and 8
Michael Madej
Regional Office
Pamela Edw
ards
Grand Canyon National Park
John Hannon
Rocky Mountain National Park
Kevin Poe
Bryce Canyon National Park
Jennifer Staroska
Zion National Park
Int
erior Regions 8, 9, 10, and 12
Dianne Croal
Regional Office
Interior Region 11
Kevin Doniere
Alaska Region
Washington Support Office
Steve Suder
Alternative Transportation Program
Joni G
allegos
Alternative Transportation Program
Jennifer Miller
P
rogram Analyst
Ma’ayan Dembo
Transit & Visitor Use Planning Fellow
Denver S
ervice Center
Cliff Burton
Information Management
Robert Maupin
Transportation Division
Victor
Rydlizky
Transportation Division
BriAn
na Weldon
Transportation Division
NPS N
ational Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020
39
Appendix B – National Park Service Alternative Transportation Program
(ATP) Goals and Objectives
GOAL: C
ultivate improvements in transportation connectivity, convenience, and safety for visitors
and workforce.
OUTCOME: Access to, from, and within national parks is convenient, safe, and well-connected via
appropriate and integrated transportation solutions.
Develop transportation options that meet the diverse needs of park visitors and
NPS workforce.
Connect and enhance existing transportation options.
Minimize injuries, fatalities, and crashes associated with all modes of transportation.
Participate in local, regional, and statewide transportation planning processes to ensure
appropriate integration of NPS transportation infrastructure, systems, and services.
GOAL: Provide quality transportation experiences that enhance park visits.
OUTCOME: NPS transportation systems contribute to the positive experience of park visitors.
Improve visitor access to appropriate destinations.
Use transportation to educate and inform visitors about park resources and services.
Reduce disruptions to the visitor experience related to vehicle traffic congestion.
Design and adapt transportation systems to complement each park’s unique context
and mission.
GOAL: Demonstrate leadership in environmentally responsible transportation.
OUTCOME: The National Park Service is recognized as a leader in environmentally
responsible transportation.
Prioritize investments and operations that reduce vehicle emissions, noise and light
pollution, traffic congestion, and unendorsed parking.
Educate park visitors and workforce about the environmental benefits of transportation
options within and beyond park boundaries.
Contribute to NPS and park greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals.
Implement proven green transportation innovations and best practices where appropriate.
GOAL: Ensure the long-term financial viability of NPS transportation infrastructure, systems, and
services.
OUTCOME: Funding is adequate to maintain transportation infrastructure, operate transportation
systems, and manage transportation services now and into the foreseeable future.
NPS N
ational Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020
40
Consider the full range of business models and associated lifecycle costs (direct and
indirect) before making investments.
Increase the flexibility of funding mechanisms to better support transportation options.
Rightsize and maintain needed transportation assets and services in a state of good repair.
Develop transportation options with reciprocal benefits for NPS and gateway communities
that can be collaboratively funded and/or operated.
Seek to enhance or develop partnerships with public, private, and philanthropic
organizations that are aligned with the NPS mission.
GOAL: Manage the transportation program based on meaningful, reliable data.
OUTCOME: The National Park Service demonstrates accountability in the management of
transportation resources.
Use measurable, applicable, and achievable performance measures and metrics to guide
and support decision-making and management of the transportation program.
Invest in and maintain data that supports performance measures aligned with
program goals.
Continually evaluate transportation options to ensure they meet program goals, and adjust
operations to optimize system performance.
NPS N
ational Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020
41
Appendix C – Definition of Transit
The National Park Service (NPS) Alternative Transportation Program (ATP) developed a definition
for an “NPS transit system” prior to conducting the 2012 transit inventory. Only parks with systems
that met each of the three criteria listed below were considered for the inventory:
1. Moves people by motorized vehicle on a regularly scheduled service.
19
2. Operate
s under one of the following business models: concession contract; service
contract; partner agreement including memorandum of understanding, memorandum of
agreement, or cooperative agreement (commercial use agreements are not included); or is
NPS owned and operated.
20
3. All ro
utes and services at a given park that are operated under the same business model by
the same operator are considered a single NPS transit system.
This definition was based on a review of past efforts, analysis of the existing transit portfolio, and
individual and group conversations with the Regional Transportation Program coordinators and
the Federal Lands Highway Program Servicewide Maintenance Advisory Committee. In response
to challenges encountered during the course of the inventory, small changes were made to the
original draft definition to improve clarity. The definition was uniformly applied to all potential
systems to determine whether each should be included in the inventory.
The NPS Alternative Transportation Program investigated several potential criteria that stemmed
from existing ATP documents and conversations with ATP stakeholders, as presented below.
Provides transit service: An “NPS transit system” should provide transit service. In the glossary of
the National Transit Database, the Federal Transit Administration defines transit as synonymous
with public transportation and public transportation is defined as follows in the Federal Transit
Act: “… transportation by a conveyance that provides regular and continuing general or special
transportation to the public, but does not include school bus, charter, or intercity bus
transportation or intercity passenger rail transportation provided by [Amtrak].” Conversations
with NPS regional transportation coordinators further specified transit service should be limited to
motorized conveyances. Based on this information, the NPS Alternative Transportation Program
proposed the following criterion: “moves people by motorized vehicle on a regularly scheduled
service.”
Is important to the NPS mission: The importance of transit systems to fulfilling the NPS mission
is a core tenet of the Alternative Transportation Program, as established in previous program plans
and extensively discussed at program meetings. However, the simple question, “Is this system
important to the NPS mission?” is subjective and would return inconsistent results. For many
systems, particularly those for which the National Park Service has a financial stake or has a formal
contract or agreement in place, the answer seems clear: because the National Park Service has made
an effort to provide the service, the service is assumed to be important to the mission. Other
services, particularly those that operate under a commercial use agreement (CUA), are not as
19
This criterion includes services with a posted schedule that have standard operating seasons/days of week/hours. Services
that do not operate on a fixed route, are charter services for individual groups, or exist for the sole purpose of providing
access to persons with disabilities are not included.
20
For the purposes of this inventory, no distinction was drawn between a memorandum of understanding, memorandum of
agreement, or cooperative agreement. All were recorded as “cooperative agreement.”
NPS N
ational Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020
42
clearly essential to the mission. Thus, the NPS Alternative Transportation Program proposed the
following criterion: “operates under one of the following business models: concessions contract;
service contract; partner agreement including memorandum of understanding,
memorandum of agreement, or cooperative agreement (commercial use agreements are not
included); or NPS owned and operated systems.” The NPS Alternative Transportation Program
used “cooperative agreement” as a general term, encompassing all qualifying partner agreements
(memorandum of understanding, memorandum of agreement, and cooperative agreement).
Concession contracts were included because they require resources and desire by the NPS to
initiate. Also, after the bid and award process, concession contracts limit competition with other
private operators and thus generally result in close working relationships with the National Park
Service. Commercial use agreements are not included because prospective CUA operators request
permission from the National Park Service to operate. These agreements are not initiated by the
National Park Service and the resulting services are inherently not “NPS” systems.
Commercial use agreements were not included because these services are owned and operated by
private operators, and the National Park Service only provides oversight to ensure that the services
are operated in accordance with NPS policies and requirements. Hundreds of commercial use
agreement exist servicewide that provide visitors tours and transportation. Collecting and
reporting information on all these systems could be burdensome to parks and regions. If
information were to be collected and reported on CUA services at all, an objective measure of
importance would need to be identified and two key questions would need to be addressed. First,
how does one objectively determine whether a service operated under a commercial use agreement
is important versus nonessential to the NPS mission? This effort found only one subcategory of
commercial use agreement that could be considered objective: services that provide sole access to
an NPS resource. Second, should the National Park Service represent as its own services for which
it has no role in the acquisition, operations, or maintenance activities? Even for commercial use
agreements that provide sole access, this effort suggests not. This determination is not to suggest
that the service is not important to the National Park Service, but rather to acknowledge that the
service is not the responsibility of the National Park Service—in other words, the service is not an
“NPS transit system.” These systems could be tracked separately but would not be included in the
inventory.
Reduces vehicle miles traveled (VMT): In theory, reducing VMT reduces emissions. However,
the simple question of “Does a system reduce VMT?” was tested on candidate NPS transit systems,
and answers tended to be complex and debatable. The NPS Alternative Transportation Program
determined that “reduces VMT” is not an objective criterion. Although reducing VMT can be a
goal of NPS transit systems, it should not be a defining characteristic.
Provides critical access: The question “Does a system provide critical access?” was tested on
candidate NPS transit systems. However, not all NPS transit systems provide critical access, and
not all systems which provide critical access meet other likely criteria of a definition, such as the
National Park Service having a financial stake. Thus, this criterion would not contribute toward a
simple, clear definition.
Tours versus transportation: A distinction exists between interpretive tours and transportation,
the former being a recreational activity itself, and the latter being the conveyance of a passenger to
or between activities. Whether a system is a tour or provides transportation was tested on candidate
NPS transit systems. The distinction was often ambiguous. Many “transportation services” also
provide interpretation or offer an experience on board. Many “tours” transport people to activities,
allow people to get on and off, and/or take passengers to places in national parks that they could
not access in their cars (for example, to a point on a body of water). Furthermore, both tours and
NPS N
ational Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020
43
transportation services further the visitor experience component of the NPS mission, and the NPS
Alternative Transportation Program sought not to prioritize one over the other. Although in daily
life a transportation trip (often thought to be mandatory—e.g., to the grocery store) might be more
important than a tour trip (often thought to be discretionary—e.g., a historical tour of a battlefield),
in a recreational setting such as national park, both types of trips may be vital to providing high-
quality visitor experiences.
Is part of a connected, multimodal network: Several stakeholders suggested this criterion.
However, it is vague, and requires further definition of the term “connected, multimodal network.”
Identifying unique systems: In order to be consistent servicewide in counting the number of
transit systems, the NPS Alternative Transportation Program investigated methods for defining
where one transit system stops and another starts and tested these with candidate NPS transit
systems, particularly at parks thought to have more than one system. Based on this investigation,
the NPS Alternative Transportation Program proposed a final criterion: “all routes and services
operated by the same operator under the same business model at a given park are considered a
single transit system.”
Once developed, the pilot definition was shared individually with the transportation program
coordinators from each of the seven NPS regions. Feedback from each region was generally
supportive. The definition was also presented at the May 2012 Federal Lands Highway Program
Servicewide Maintenance Committee. Again, reaction by meeting participants was generally
supportive. The associate director, Park Planning, Facilities, and Lands, formalized the draft
definition in August 2012 in a memo titled, “National Park Service Transit Inventory Definition and
Next Steps.”
NPS N
ational Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020
44
Appendix D – 2020 NPS National Inventory System List
Interior Region 1
Park
Code
System Name
Vehicle
Type
2020
Passenger
Boardings
Vehicle
Ownership
Agreement
Type
Purpose
NPS Contact
Name
ACAD Island Explorer &
Bicycle Express
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
Did not
operate
Non-NPS Cooperative
Agreement
Mobility To Or
Within Park
John Kelly
ADAM Adams Trolley Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
9,177 NPS Service
Contract
Critical Access Kevin Kelly
BOHA Boston Light
Tour
Ferry/Boat Did not
operate
Non-NPS Cooperative
Agreement
Interpretive
Tour
Beth
Jackendoff
BOHA Thompson Island
Ferry
Ferry/Boat Did not
operate
Non-NPS Cooperative
Agreement
Mobility To Or
Within Park
Beth
Jackendoff
CACO Coastguard
Beach Shuttle
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
Did not
operate
NPS NPS Owned
& Operated
Critical Access Lauren
McKean
EISE EISE Shuttle Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
7,996 Non-NPS Concession
Contract
Critical Access Angela
Atkinson
FIIS Sailors Haven
Ferry
Ferry/Boat 27,410 Non-NPS Concession
Contract
Critical Access Jason
Pristupa
FIIS Watch Hill Ferry Ferry/Boat 13,424 Non-NPS Concession
Contract
Critical Access Jason
Pristupa
HOFR Roosevelt Ride Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
345 NPS NPS Owned
& Operated
Critical Access Dave Bullock
HOFR FDR Tram Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
Did not
operate
NPS NPS Owned
& Operated
Special Needs Dave Bullock
HOFR Val-Kill Tram Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
Did not
operate
NPS NPS Owned
& Operated
Special Needs Dave Bullock
JOFL Lakebed Tours Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
Did not
operate
NPS NPS Owned
& Operated
Interpretive
Tour
Doug Bosley
LOWE Canal Tours Ferry/Boat Did not
operate
NPS NPS Owned
& Operated
Interpretive
Tour
Curran,
Michael
LOWE LOWE Historic
Trolley
Train/Trolley 1,252 NPS NPS Owned
& Operated
Mobility To Or
Within Park
Michael
Curran
SHEN Rapidan Camp
Bus
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
327 NPS NPS Owned
& Operated
Interpretive
Tour
Tim Taglauer
STEA Scranton Limited
& Live Steam
Excursions
Train/Trolley 4,015 NPS NPS Owned
and
Operated
Interpretive
Tour
Jessica
Weinman
STLI Statue of Liberty
Ferries
Ferry/Boat 3,257,598 Non-NPS Concession
Contract
Critical Access Ben Hanslin
VAFO History of Valley
Forge Trolley
Tour
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
1,368 Non-NPS Cooperative
Agreement
Interpretive
Tour
Pamela
Zesotarski
NPS N
ational Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020
45
Interior Region 1 – National Capital Area
Park
Code
System Name
Vehicle
Type
2020
Passenger
Boardings
Vehicle
Ownership
Agreement
Type
Purpose
NPS
Contact
Name
HAFE
HAFE shuttle
transport
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
79,720 NPS
Service
Contract
Critical Access
Larry
Moore
NAMA
Big Bus Tours
Washington, DC
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
10,046 Non-NPS
Concession
Contract
Interpretive Tour Karl Gallo
NAMA DC Circulator
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
2,005,653 Non-NPS
Cooperative
Agreement
Transportation
Feature
Eliza Voigt
WOTR
Fairfax
Connectors Wolf
Trap Express
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
Did not
operate
Non-NPS
Service
Contract
Mobility to or
within Park
Janette
Lemons
Interior Region 2 – South Atlantic Group
Park
Code
System Name
Vehicle
Type
2020
Passenger
Boardings
Vehicle
Ownership
Agreement
Type
Purpose
NPS
Contact
Name
BLRI
Sharp Top
Mountain
Shuttle
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
1,806 Non-NPS
Concession
Contract
Transportation
Feature
Shawn
Cloutier
CALO Ferry Service Ferry/Boat 79,133 Non-NPS
Concession
Contract
Critical Access
Katherine
Cusinberry
CARL Electric Shuttle
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
1,558 NPS
NPS Owned
& Operated
Special Needs
Sarah
Perschall
CUIS Ferry Service Ferry/Boat 51,430 Non-NPS
Concession
Contract
Critical Access
Jill
Hamilton-
Anderson
CUIS
Land and
Legacies Tour
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
2,216 NPS
Concession
Contract
Interpretive Tour
Jill
Hamilton-
Anderson
FOMA/C
ASA
Ferry Service Ferry/Boat 8,762 NPS
NPS Owned
& Operated
Critical Access
Andrew
Rich
FOSU Ferry Service Ferry/Boat 134,521 Non-NPS
Concession
Contract
Critical Access
Michelle
Haas
GUIS Ferry Service Ferry/Boat 18,687 NPS
Concession
Contract
Transportation
Feature
Richard
Devenney
GUIS
Ship Island
Ferry
Ferry/Boat 10,439 NPS/Non-NPS
Concession
Contract
Transportation
Feature
Richard
Devenney
KEMO Shuttle Bus
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
4,579 NPS
Service
Contract
Transportation
Feature
Ladrick
Downie
MACA
Cave Tours Bus
Shuttle
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
46,084 NPS/Non-NPS
Concession
Contract
Interpretive Tour Steve Kovar
MACA
Green River
Ferry
Ferry/Boat 9,202 NPS
NPS Owned
& Operated
Transportation
Feature
Steve Kovar
Interior Regions 3, 4, and 5
Park
Code
System Name
Vehicle
Type
2020
Passenger
Boardings
Vehicle
Ownership
Agreement
Type
Purpose
NPS
Contact
Name
APIS Excursion Boat Boat/Ferry 30,000 Non-NPS
Concession
Contract
Interpretive Tour
Elizabeth
Lowthian
NPS N
ational Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020
46
Park
Code
System Name
Vehicle
Type
2020
Passenger
Boardings
Vehicle
Ownership
Agreement
Type
Purpose
NPS
Contact
Name
CUVA
Cuyahoga
Valley Scenic
Railroad
Trolley/Train 88,486 Non-NPS
Cooperative
Agreement
Mobility to or
Within Park
Jennifer
Vasarhelyi
ISRO
MV Isle Royale
Queen IV
Boat/Ferry
Did not
operate
Non-NPS
Concession
Contract
Critical Access
Chris
Amidon
ISRO MV Ranger III Boat/Ferry 253 NPS
NPS Owned
& Operated
Critical Access
Chris
Amidon
ISRO MV Sandy tour Boat/Ferry
Did not
operate
Non-NPS
Concession
Contract
Interpretive Tour
Chris
Amidon
ISRO
MV Voyageur II
and Sea Hunter
III
Boat/Ferry
Did not
operate
NPS/Non-NPS
Concession
Contract
Critical Access
Chris
Amidon
ISRO
Royale Air
Service Inc.
Float Plane
Plane 4,614 Non-NPS
Concession
Contract
Critical Access
Chris
Amidon
OZAR Akers Ferry Boat/Ferry 281 NPS
Concession
Contract
Transportation
Feature
Peggy
Tarrence
PIRO
Pictured Rocks
Cruises
Boat/Ferry 103,543 Non-NPS
Concession
Contract
Interpretive Tour
Joseph
Hughes
SCBL
SCBL Free
Shuttle Service
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
Did not
operate
NPS
NPS Owned
& Operated
Mobility to or
within Park
Justin
Cawiezel
SLBE
Manitou Island
Transit
Boat/Ferry
Did not
operate
Non-NPS
Concession
Contract
Transportation
Feature
Phil Akers
TAPR TAPR Bus Tour
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
1,036 NPS
NPS Owned
& Operated
Interpretive Tour
Heather
Brown
VOYA
VOYA Tour
Boat
Boat/Ferry
Did not
operate
NPS
NPS Owned
& Operated
Interpretive Tour
Tawnya
Schoewe
Interior Regions 6, 7, and 8
Park
Code
System Name
Vehicle
Type
2020
Passenger
Boardings
Vehicle
Ownership
Agreement
Type
Purpose
NPS
Contact
Name
BAND
Bandelier
National
Monument
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
Did not
operate
Non-NPS
Service
Contract
Critical Access
Dennis
Milligan
BRCA
Bryce Canyon
Shuttle and
Rainbow Point
Shuttle
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
178,524 Non-NPS
Service
Contract
Mobility to or
within Park
Kevin Poe
DINO Tram Transit
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
504,000 Non-NPS
Service
Contract
Critical Access Jeffrey Pate
GLAC
GLAC Hiker
Shuttle
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
Did not
operate
NPS
Cooperative
Agreement
Mobility to or
within Park
Patrick
Glynn
GLAC
Glacier Park
Boat Company
-interpretive
boat tours
Ferry/Boat
Did not
operate
Non-NPS
Concession
Contract
Interpretive Tour
Jennifer
Evans
GLAC Red Bus Tours
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
Did not
operate
NPS
Concession
Contract
Interpretive Tour
Jennifer
Evans
GLAC Sun Tours
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
Did not
operate
Non-NPS
Concession
Contract
Interpretive Tour
Jennifer
Evans
NPS N
ational Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020
47
Park
Code
System Name
Vehicle
Type
2020
Passenger
Boardings
Vehicle
Ownership
Agreement
Type
Purpose
NPS
Contact
Name
GLAC
Visitor
Transportation
System (VTS)
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
Did not
operate
NPS
NPS Owned
& Operated
Mobility to or
within Park
Patrick
Glynn
GLCA Antelope Point Ferry/Boat
Did not
operate
Non-NPS
Concession
Contract
Interpretive Tour
Gregory
Owen
GLCA Boat Tours Ferry/Boat
Did not
operate
Non-NPS
Concession
Contract
Interpretive Tour
Gregory
Owen
GLCA Flatwater Tour Ferry/Boat
Did not
operate
Non-NPS
Concession
Contract
Interpretive Tour
Gregory
Owen
GLCA
SR276
Passenger Ferry
Ferry/Boat 1,974 Non-NPS
Service
Contract
Transportation
Feature
Gregory
Owen
GRCA
Grand Canyon
Railway
Train/Trolley 167,424 Non-NPS
Concession
Contract
Mobility to or
within Park
Pamela
Edwards
GRCA
South Rim Bus
Tours
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
15,284 Non-NPS
Concession
Contract
Interpretive Tour
Pamela
Edwards
GRCA
South Rim
Shuttle Service
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
1,142,098 NPS
Service
Contract
Mobility to or
within Park
Pamela
Edwards
GRTE
Jenny Lake
Shuttle Boat
Ferry/Boat 207,047 Non-NPS
Concession
Contract
Mobility to or
within Park
Katy
Canetta
LIBI LIBI Bus Tours
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
Did not
operate
Non-NPS
Concession
Contract
Interpretive Tour Ken Woody
MEVE
Long House
Trailhead Tram
and Half-Day
Ranger Guided
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
1,557 Non-NPS
Concession
Contract
Interpretive Tour Allan Loy
ORPI
Ajo Mountain
Drive Tour
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
673 NPS
NPS Owned
& Operated
Critical Access
Cynthia
Sequanna
ROMO
Rocky
Mountain
National Park
Visitor Shuttle
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
409,565 Non-NPS
Service
Contract
Mobility to or
within Park
John
Hannon
YELL
Historic Yellow
Bus Tours
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
140 NPS
Concession
Contract
Interpretive Tour
Matthew
Mankowski
YELL
Xanterra Parks
& Resorts
interpretive bus
tours
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
4,360
Non-NPS;
NPS
Concession
Contract
Interpretive Tour
Matthew
Mankowski
YELL
Xanterra Parks
& Resorts
Interpretive
Snow coaches
Tours
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
14,918 Non-NPS
Concession
Contract
Interpretive Tour
Matthew
Mankowski
YELL YELL Boat Ferry/Boat
Did not
operate
NPS
Concession
Contract
Interpretive Tour
Matthew
Mankowski
YELL
YELL Snow
Coaches
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
24,631
Non-NPS;
NPS
Concession
Contract
Interpretive Tour
Matthew
Mankowski
ZION Zion Shuttle
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
1,532,052 NPS
Service
Contract
Critical Access
Jennifer
Staroska
NPS N
ational Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020
48
Interior Regions 8 (Southern California and Southern Nevada), 9, 10, and 12
Park
Code System Name
Vehicle
Type
2020
Passenger
Boardings
Vehicle
Ownership
Agreement
Type Purpose
NPS Contact
Name
CHIS Island Packers Ferry/Boat 44,011 Non-NPS
Concession
Contract
Critical Access John Hansen
CRLA
Crater Lake Boat
Tour
Ferry/Boat
Did not
operate
Non-NPS
Concession
Contract
Interpretive Tour
Sean
Denniston
CRLA
Rim Drive Trolley
Tour
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
Did not
operate
Non-NPS
Concession
Contract
Interpretive Tour
Sean
Denniston
DEPO
Reds Meadow
Shuttle Bus
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
Did not
operate
Non-NPS
Cooperative
Agreement
Critical Access Kevin Killian
EUON NPS Shuttle
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
1,768 NPS
NPS Owned
& Operated
Critical Access
Thomas
Leatherman
GOGA/
ALCA
Alcatraz Cruises
Ferry
Ferry/Boat 2,696 Non-NPS
Concession
Contract
Critical Access Alice Young
MUWO
Muir Woods
Shuttle
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
20,000 Non-NPS
Cooperative
Agreement
Mobility to Or
Within Park
Darren
Brown
NOCA/
LACH
Rainbow Falls
Tours
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
Did not
operate
NPS
Concession
Contract
Interpretive Tour
Annelise
Lesmeister
NOCA/
ROLA
Ross Lake Hiker
Shuttle
Ferry/Boat 556 Non-NPS
Concession
Contract
Transportation
Feature
Annelise
Lesmeister
PORE
Headlands
Shuttle
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
Did not
report
Non-NPS
Critical
Access
Service Contract
Brannon
Ketcham
PERL Ford Island Tour
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
133,480 Non-NPS
Cooperative
Agreement
Interpretive Tour Daniel Brown
PERL
USS Arizona
Memorial Tour
Ferry/Boat 595,279 Non-NPS
Cooperative
Agreement
Interpretive Tour Daniel Brown
PINN Pinnacle Shuttle
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
Did not
report
NPS
NPS Owned
& Operated
Critical Access
Kevin
Brothers
SEKI Gateway Shuttle
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
Did not
operate
Non-NPS
Cooperative
Agreement
Mobility to Or
Within Park
Joshua
Handel
SEKI
Giant Forest
Shuttle
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
24,177 Non-NPS
Cooperative
Agreement
Critical Access
Joshua
Handel
YOSE
Mariposa Grove
Transportation
Service
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
Did not
operate
NPS
Service
Contract
Critical Access Jim Donovan
YOSE
Tram Tours and
Hiker Shuttle
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
Did not
operate
Non-NPS
Concession
Contract
Interpretive Tour Jim Donovan
YOSE
Winter Ski
Shuttle
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
Did not
operate
Non-NPS
Concession
Contract
Mobility to Or
Within Park
Jim Donovan
YOSE
YARTS:
Yosemite Area
Regional
Transportation
System
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
46,736 Non-NPS
Cooperative
Agreement
Mobility to Or
Within Park
Jim Donovan
YOSE
Yosemite Valley
Shuttle
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
Did not
operate
NPS
Concession
Contract
Mobility to Or
Within Park
Jim Donovan
NPS N
ational Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020
49
Interior Region 11 – Alaska
Park
Code
System Name
Vehicle
Type
2020
Passenger
Boardings
Vehicle
Ownership
Agreement
Type
Purpose
NPS
Contact
Name
DENA
Bus Tours and
Shuttle Service
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
10,621
NPS/Non-
NPS
Concession
Contract
Critical Access Jim LeBel
GLBA Airport Shuttle
Shuttle/Bus/
Van/Tram
Did not
operate
Non-NPS
Concession
Contract
Transportation
Feature
Melanie
Berg
GLBA Day boat tour Boat/Ferry
Did not
operate
Non-NPS
Concession
Contract
Interpretive Tour
Melanie
Berg
NPS N
ational Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020
50
Appendix E – Change in Vehicle Types
Table 10: Recategorization of vehicle types
Note: Includes all fleet data regardless of 2020 active operational status
Sources: 2019 and 2020 NPS transit inventory data
Vehicle Type 2019 Vehicles 2020 Vehicles Difference
Ferry/Boat 106 118 +12
NPS Owned 14 15 +1
Non-NPS Owned 92 103 +11
Van/SUV/Sedan 15 6 -9
NPS Owned 2 2 0
Non-NPS Owned 13 4 -9
Passenger Van 1 126 +125
NPS Owned 0 29 +29
Non-NPS Owned 1 97 +96
Light-Duty Shuttle 55 27 -28
NPS Owned 49 7 -42
Non-NPS Owned 6 20 +14
Medium-Duty Shuttle 139 96 -42
NPS Owned 49 71 +22
Non-NPS Owned 90 26 -64
Heavy-Duty Shuttle 198 0 -198
NPS Owned 76 0 -76
Non-NPS Owned 122 0 -122
Light-Duty Transit (Bus) 27 0 -27
NPS Owned 0 0 0
Non-NPS Owned 27 0 -27
Medium-Duty Transit (Bus) 47 74 +27
NPS Owned 34 34 0
Non-NPS Owned 13 40 27
Heavy-Duty Transit (Bus) 63 279 +216
NPS Owned 6 69 +63
Non-NPS Owned 57 210 +153
School Bus 108 115 +7
NPS Owned 2 7 +5
Non-NPS Owned 106 108 +2
Snowmobile/Snow coach 67 20 -47
NPS Owned 12 12 0
Non-NPS Owned 55 8 -47
Tram/Golfcart 3 3 0
NPS Owned 2 2 0
Non-NPS Owned 1 1 0
Train/Trolley/Streetcar 19 20 +1
NPS Owned 4 5 +1
Non-NPS Owned 15 15 0
Aircraft 3 3 0
NPS Owned 0 0 0
Non-NPS Owned 3 3 0
Total 850 908 59
NPS Owned 251 273 +22
Non-NPS Owned 599 635 +36
NPS N
ational Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020
51
Appendix F – Vehicle Replacement Assumptions
Uniform vehicle replacement costs and expected service lives were used to provide servicewide
consistency in estimates of vehicle age, remaining service life, and recapitalization costs. The
assumptions below provided the basis for the recapitalization analysis, which was also validated by
regional staff to reflect variations in timelines, vehicle types purchased, and growth in vehicle fleets.
These assumptions were updated for the 2015 inventory from previous inventories
21
to reflect the
usage and operating characteristics of NPS vehicles (tables 10 and 11). In order to provide a more
accurate replacement cost estimate, 2015 dollar amounts were inflated to reflect 2019 dollars. NPS
vehicles are not used in the same way that city transit vehicles are used; they are typically not used
for the entire year and are not used as intensively as transit vehicles in an urban environment.
Vehicle cost estimates were mostly taken from the General Service Administration’s AutoChoice
Database.
Table 11: V
ehicle replacement costs (in 2019 dollars) and expected life for nonelectric vehicles
Notes: CNG=compressed natural gas; N/A=not applicable
Source: Transit standards
22
updated to reflect NPS typical usage and operating characteristics
Vehicle Type
Gas/Diesel/
Biodiesel/
Propane
Replacement
Cost
Gas/Diesel/
Biodiesel/
Propane
Expected Life
(yea
rs)
CNG
Replacement
Cost
CNG
Expected Life
(yea
rs)
Passenger Van $35,640 10 N/A N/A
Light-Duty Shuttle $115,560 15 $130,140 10
Medium-Duty Shuttle $158,760 15 $166,320 10
Heavy-Duty Shuttle $158,760 15 $170,640 10
Medium-Duty Transit $297,000 18 $356,400 20
Heavy-Duty Transit $475,200 18 $516,240 20
School Bus $136,620 18 N/A N/A
6-12 Pax Electric Tram N/A 11 N/A 11
21
The 2014 inventory used replacement costs and expected life assumptions based on the Federal Transit Administration:
Useful Life of Transit Buses and Vans – April 2007.
22
Ibid.
NPS N
ational Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020
52
Table 52: Vehicle replacement costs (in 2019 dollars) and expected life for electric vehicles
Notes: N/A=not applicable
Source: Transit standards
23
updated to reflect NPS typical usage and operating characteristics
Vehicle Type
Electric-
Hybrid
Replacement
Cost
Electric-
Hybrid
Expected Life
(yea
rs)
Electric
Replacement
Cost
Electric
Expected
Life
(years)
Passenger Van N/A 10
$108,000
10
Light-Duty Shuttle $146,880 15
$426,600
15
Medium-Duty Shuttle $356,400 15
N/A
15
Heavy-Duty Shuttle $380,160 15
N/A
15
Medium-Duty Transit $534,600 18
$540,000
18
Heavy-Duty Transit $653,400 18
$810,000
18
School Bus N/A 18
N/A
18
6-12 Pax Electric Tram $21,600 11
N/A
11
A major recapitalization baselining effort was undertaken as part of the 2019 transit inventory. The
National Park Service vehicle data was exported from the inventory to determine a calculated
replacement year based on the life expectancy and age of each vehicle. From there, the Parks
Transportation Allocation and Tracking System and Project Management Information System
(PMIS) was reviewed for planned replacement and/or refurbishment projects (tables 12 and 13).
Regional coordinators reviewed the plan and consulted on the draft recapitalization plan presented
in this report.
The major takeaway from this effort was that the estimated costs were not accurate for NPS
replacement and recapitalization planning. The 2020 inventory should collect more accurate data
on planned replacement year, costs, and associated PMIS numbers to further inform the
recapitalization analysis.
23
The 2014 inventory used replacement costs and expected life assumptions based on the Federal Transit Administration:
Useful Life of Transit Buses and Vans – April 2007.
NPS N
ational Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020
53
Table 6: Recapitalization totals by year
Sources: Estimated recapitalization needs based on transit inventory data, transit standards, Project Management Information
System, Parks Transportation Allocation and Tracking System, and region and park input
Year
Total
Vehicles
Cost
2021 25 $4,536,280
2022 33 $13,392,000
2023 41 $47,046,760
2024 28 $6,130,640
2025 23 $11,222,240
2026 23 $22,033,440
2027 19 $11,598,000
2028 11 $6,475,280
2029 7 $1,954,400
2030 2 $293,760
2031 1 $146,880
Total: 213 $124,829,680
NPS N
ational Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020
54
Appendix G – Air Quality and Emissions
Since 2017, the transit inventory has used an updated methodology to analyze the air quality and
greenhouse gas impacts of NPS transit systems. The analysis uses the US Environmental Protection
Agency’s (EPA) Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) for estimating emissions by transit
vehicles. MOVES is a state-of-the-science emissions modeling software that estimates airborne
emissions from various on-road vehicles across several vehicle types at very fine scales. MOVES
uses years of direct measurements to account for how different vehicles, fuel types, road types (e.g.,
urban vs. rural, highways vs. local streets), and emission processes (e.g., running, starting, and
idling) contribute to air pollution. This process allows MOVES to calculate emissions from both
on-road vehicles, such as transit buses, and off-road vehicles, such as waterborne vessels and trams.
The EPA released a new version of MOVES in November 2020 (MOVES3).
Since MOVES is the EPA’s regulatory standard for emissions analysis, NPS units may use the
results to engage directly with other local, state, and national air quality initiatives, as well as make
informed programmatic decisions that improve resource management and visitor experience in the
parks. For a discussion of the differences between the emissions modeling methods used in years
prior to 2017, please see the NPS Transit Inventory and Performance Report 2017.
Pollutants
The following pollutants are included in the 2020 air quality analysis:
Carbon Dioxide (CO
2
)
24
Carbon
dioxide is a colorless gas produced through chemical combustion, including burning fuels
to power automobiles and homes. Typically, gasoline combustion emits more carbon dioxide than
other fuels.
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
Nitrogen oxides (NO
x
) are a collection of gaseous molecules containing one nitrogen atom and a
number of oxygen atoms. As with the other pollutants described here, fuel combustion emits
nitrogen oxides. While upper-atmospheric nitrogen oxides can actually counteract the warming
effects of greenhouse gases, ground-level NO
x
molecules react with other airborne chemicals to
become particles that can cause respiratory conditions in humans.
25
Volatil
e organic compounds are a broad category of organic molecules that evaporate at very low
temperatures. Flammable solvents like paint thinners and some household cleaners, as well as other
aromatics including vehicular fuels, all contain volatile organic compounds. State, local, and federal
institutions tightly regulate volatile organic compounds as they are easily absorbed into human
tissue and can have harmful health effects.
26
Nitroge
n oxides and volatile organic compounds can together form ozone (O
3
), a highly reactive
gas. Stratospheric ozone, high up in Earth’s atmosphere, deflects harmful solar radiation away from
24
IPCC 2013, “Climate Change: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
25
US Environmental Protection Agency, “NO
x
: How Nitrogen Oxides Affect the Way We Live and Breathe.”
26
Ibid.
NPS N
ational Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020
55
Earth’s surface. However, nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds interacting at the
surface produce ground ozone, causing a variety of negative health effects. Ground-level ozone can
also severely harm plants and wildlife, and because ozone can travel long distances by wind, rural
areas may experience high exposure even with little O
3
production.
27
Carbon Monox
ide (CO)
28
Carbon m
onoxide (CO) is a colorless and odorless gas released through burning fossil fuels, though
the emissions quantities vary by fuel type. In large quantities, carbon monoxide can be extremely
dangerous for animals and humans because it inhibits the absorption of oxygen into the
bloodstream. While CO toxicity is ordinarily only a concern indoors, where such quantities easily
accumulate, the elderly and those with certain cardiovascular are at risk of serious health impacts at
higher outdoor concentrations. This often occurs at hot outdoor locations in the presence of
numerous running motors, such as parking lots in summer.
Particulate Matter (PM)
29
Particulate
matter (PM) encompasses solid and liquid particles emitted into the air, including dust,
soot, and aerosolized chemicals. Particulate matter can come from construction sites, roadway
wear as tires and heavy vehicles move over them, and burning fuels. Diesel fuel combustion
generally emits more particulate matter than other fuels, and driving over unpaved surfaces can
emit PM10 particles. Two categories of particulate matter concerning regulatory analyses of air
quality include those with negative impacts on respiratory health—inhalable particles 10
micrometers and smaller (PM10)—as well as those 2.5 micrometers and smaller (PM2.5). Exposure
to particulate matter can cause and aggravate respiratory conditions such as asthma; this is
especially true of PM10 particles. PM2.5 particles are a major contributor to smog, which both
obscures views and damages natural resources.
Results
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a significant decrease in emitting activity (i.e., a
decrease in vehicle miles traveled; VMT) in the 2020 system inventory. In addition, some systems
were captured in the 2019 inventory but not in 2020 and vice versa. Thus, the 2020 results may
differ from 2019. As data collection becomes more consistent over the next few years, these results
are expected to stabilize, and results may be more directly compared year to year.
Diverted Passenger Vehicle Trips and CO
2
Emissions Avoided
Although transit systems contribute to emissions, transit in NPS units typically has a net positive
effect on air quality, as well as the visitor experience. Transit use reduces the number of vehicle
trips in parks—for example, transit buses carry more people per square foot of road space, relieving
congestion on park roads and eliminating associated fuel-inefficient driving behaviors such as
extended idling and stop-and-go. In addition to the air quality benefits of reduced fuel use per
27
US Environmental Protection Agency, “Basic Information about Ozone | Ozone Pollution | US EPA.”
28
US Environmental Protection Agency, “Basic Information about Carbon Monoxide (CO) Outdoor Air Pollution | Carbon
Monoxide (CO) Pollution in Outdoor Air | US EPA.”
29
Ibid.
NPS N
ational Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020
56
visitor, expanded transit use influences how visitors spend their time in the park and removes long
lines of cars from viewsheds.
Figure 13 shows the estimated number of vehicle trips eliminated as a result of transit use in each
region. NPS transit services eliminated an estimated 4.2 million passenger vehicle trips in 2020,
which equates to 114 million fewer miles driven and a reduction in CO
2
emissions of nearly 44,000
metric tons. Regions with high transit use and more boardings divert more personal vehicles from
the road.
The number of passenger vehicle trips diverted is calculated by dividing the total number of
passenger boardings by the average occupancy of visitors’ personal vehicles (assumed to be 2.6).
Emissions avoided are calculated as the VMT avoided multiplied by a passenger vehicle emissions
factor (EFp) for a given pollutant, assuming that the passenger vehicles use conventional gasoline
fuel.
Figure 13: Vehicle trips (in millions) avoided as a result of NPS transit systems
Notes: IR=Interior Region; NCA=National Capital Area; NPS=National Park Service
Source: 2020 NPS transit inventory data
1.5
1.3
334k
775k
137k
4k
12k
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
IR 6, 7, 8 IR 1 IR 8, 9, 10, 12 IR 2 - SAG IR 1 - NCA IR 11 IR 3, 4, 5
Diverted Passenger Trips (millions)
Table 14: Vehicle trips (in millions) avoided as a result of NPS transit systems
Interior
Region
IR 6, 7, 8 IR 1 IR 8, 9, 10, 12 IR 2 IR 1 – NCA IR 11 IR 3, 4, 5
Diverted
Passenger
Vehicle Trips
1,552,624 1,344,060 334,117 775,269 137,465 4,085 12,181
NPS N
ational Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020
57
Criteria Pollutant Emissions Inventories
The following section details the emissions inventories for criteria pollutants and their precursors
across the fleets operating in national parks. Vehicle fuel type and terrain type were observed to
influence the emissions results. Diesel use results in a different pollution profile than alternative
fuels, buses contribute differently than cars, heavy-duty ferries pollute differently than
automobiles, and heavy engine loads on unpaved surfaces require more fuel and generate more
road dust from brake and tire wear compared to paved roads. However, fewer vehicles burning fuel
in has a net positive effect on local air quality in national parks.
Figure 14 shows the results of MOVES CO
2
emissions modeling for 2020 NPS transit system
activity, aggregated to the regional level. The results are also split by ownership (NPS vs. non-NPS
systems). Across all regions, NPS transit fleets emitted just under 2,000 metric tons of CO
2
in 2020.
Figure 14: NPS tra
nsit system carbon dioxide emissions
Notes: IR=Interior Region; NCA=National Capital Area; NPS=National Park Service
Source: 2020 NPS transit inventory data
2.91
1,200.11
2.02
0.68
25.9
4,475.56
1765.82
717.67
1669.49
2,179.80
734.07
99.47
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
IR 8, 9, 10, 12 IR 6, 7, 8 IR 3 IR 1 IR 1 - NCA IR 2 - SAG IR 11
Emissions (tons)
NPS Vehicles Non-NPS Vehicles
NPS N
ational Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020
58
Figure 15 shows the results of MOVES NOx emissions modeling for 2020 NPS transit system
activity, split by ownership. Across all regions, NPS transit fleets emitted 12.5 metric tons of NOx in
2020.
Figure 15: NPS tra
nsit system nitrogen oxide emissions
Notes: IR=Interior Region; NCA=National Capital Area; NPS=National Park Service
Source: 2020 NPS transit inventory data
3.23
0.04
0.01
9.24
36.03
19.20
5.43
12.45
2.95
0.03
1.57
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
IR 8, 9, 10, 12 IR 6, 7, 8 IR 2 - SAG IR 1 IR 1 - NCA IR 3, 4, 5 IR 11
Emissions (tons)
NPS Vehicles Non-NPS Vehicles
NPS N
ational Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020
59
Figure 16 shows the results of MOVES volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions modeling for
2020 NPS transit system activity, split by ownership. Across all regions, NPS transit fleets emitted
just over 1 metric ton of VOCs in 2020. Volatile organic compounds combine with other airborne
compounds, including NOx, to produce ozone and photochemical smog. The NPS fleet in the
Intermountain Region emits the highest amounts of VOC, as this region has a substantial
proportion of vehicles powered by propane and marine diesel. This is also true of the non-NPS
fleet in the Pacific West Region. Note that propane combustion becomes less chemically efficient at
high altitudes (i.e., where less oxygen exists) and can therefore result in greater VOC, as well as CO
emissions in certain regions—especially the Intermountain Region and parts of the Pacific West
Region.
30
Figure 16: NPS tra
nsit system volatile organic compound emissions
Notes: IR=Interior Region; NCA=National Capital Area; NPS=National Park Service.
Source: 2020 NPS transit inventory data.
0.71
0.05
0.34
2.54
2.75
0.47
1.01
0.07
0.16
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
IR 8, 9, 10, 12 IR 6, 7, 8 IR 2 - SAG IR 1 IR 1 - NCA IR 3, 4, 5 IR 11
Emissions (tons)
NPS Vehicles Non-NPS Vehicles
30
S. McAllister et al., “Chapter 2: Thermodynamics of Combustion”. Fundamentals of Combustion Processes, Springer (2011).
NPS N
ational Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020
60
Figure 17 shows the results of MOVES CO emissions modeling for 2020 NPS transit system activity,
split by ownership. Across all regions, NPS transit fleets emitted approximately 9 metric tons of CO
in 2020. The Grand Canyon’s heavy use of compressed natural gas (CNG)-fueled buses and
shuttles contributes significantly to IMR’s high relative CO emissions. Compressed natural gas
buses emit substantially more CO than conventional fuels, but approximately 50% less NOx. As
NOx is an ozone precursor, the latter characteristic makes CNG-fueled vehicles ideal for
minimizing smog—a key consideration in parks with long-distance viewsheds. The large number of
propane-powered transit vehicles operated at higher altitudes in IMR also contributes to increased
CO emissions.
Figure 17: NPS tra
nsit system carbon monoxide emissions
Notes: IR=Interior Region; NCA=National Capital Area; NPS=National Park Service
Source: 2020 NPS transit inventory data
6.91
0.01
0.72
65.70
8.48
2.14
3.01
1.52
2.32
0.37
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
IR 6, 7, 8 IR 8, 9, 10, 12 IR 2 - SAG IR 1 IR 3, 4, 5 IR 1 - NCA IR 11
Emissions (tons)
NPS Vehicles Non-NPS Vehicles
NPS N
ational Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020
61
Ferries that run on marine diesel, as well as buses fueled by propane, emit significantly more
particulate matter than vehicles powered by other fuels. Several parks in PWR include exclusively
marine transit fleets, and the Pictured Rocks Cruises ferry fleet contributes majority of the
Northeast Region’s particulate matter emissions. In the Intermountain Region, ferries at Glen
Canyon and Grant Teton and the propane bus fleet at Zion increase PM emissions in this region.
Figure 18 shows the results of MOVES PM2.5 emissions modeling for 2020 NPS transit system
activity, split by ownership. Across all regions, NPS transit fleets emitted about 0.41 metric tons of
PM2.5 in 2020. Breathing air with high levels of PM2.5 can result in adverse health impacts,
including increased risk of cardiovascular disease and asthma.
Figure 108: NPS tr
ansit system PM
2.5
emissions
Notes: IR=Interior Region; NCA=National Capital Area; NPS=National Park Service
Source: 2020 NPS transit inventory data
0.22
0.74
0.20
0.09
0.22
0.03
0.20
0.09
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
IR 8, 9, 10, 12 IR 6, 7, 8 IR 2 - SAG IR 1 IR 1 - NCA IR 3, 4, 5 IR 11
Emissions (tons)
NPS Vehicles Non-NPS Vehicles
NPS N
ational Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020
62
Figure 19 shows the results of MOVES PM10 emissions modeling for 2020 NPS transit system
activity, split by ownership. Across all regions, NPS transit fleets emitted about 0.51 metric tons of
PM10 in 2020. Some regions (e.g., PWR, IMR) produce more PM10 than PM2.5 in part due to
transit systems operating on unpaved roads, which can result in release of larger particles as
fugitive dust.
Figure 119: NPS transit system PM
10
emissions
Notes: IR=Interior Region; NCA=National Capital Area; NPS=National Park Service
Source: 2020 NPS transit inventory data
Across all pollutant types, the majority of emissions came from non-NPS vehicles rather than NPS
vehicles. Additionally, the Intermountain and Pacific West Regions generally had the highest
emissions compared to the other regions. CO
2
emissions were far greater than any of the other
pollutants on the basis of mass, which is consistent with the Environmental Protection Agency’s
2017 National Emissions Inventory (NEI).
31
Nonetheless, emissions from NPS vehicles in 2020 had
a minimal impact on the national inventory. In particular, VOC, PM
2.5
, and PM
10
emissions from
NPS vehicles were negligible compared to any other sector and major emitting source in the
national emissions inventory (e.g., agriculture, power generation).
31
US Environmental Protection Agency. 2017 National Emissions Inventory Data: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-
inventories/2017-nation
al-emissions-inventory-nei-data.
0.31
0.80
0.24
0.10
0.23
0.15
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
IR 8, 9, 10, 12 IR 6, 7, 8 IR 2 - SAG IR 1 IR 1 - NCA IR 3, 4, 5 IR 11
Emissions (tons)
NPS Vehicles Non-NPS Vehicles
NPS National Transit Inventory and Performance Report, 2020 63
Appendix H – Response to COVID-19 Operational Survey
The 2020 National Transit Inventory included a series of questions about 2020 operations during
the pandemic and 2021 plans at the time of data collection (March 2021). The following table is a
summary of responses edited slightly for clarity and brevity.
64
Table 5: CO
VID-19 operational survey
Source: 2020 NPS transit inventory data
Unit System Name
Did the system operate? If yes, normally or limited
compared to 2019? Desc
ribe the impacts on ridership
Was the ATP
COVID guide
useful?
Physical and Operational Changes to Protect Drivers Plans to Operate in 2021 and Additional Changes
BLRI Sharp Top
Mountain Shuttle
Yes. Limited. Van cut to 50% capacity. Ridership was greatly
reduced.
Somewhat
• Reduced capacity, open windows, social distancing, masks, and increased
cleaning. More frequent trips to accommodate visitors. Changes made by
concessioner, guided by the park/USPHS.
• Attempted to use an open-air golf cart.
Yes. Frequent runs with less capacity, following CDC guidelines.
BRCA Bryce Canyon
Shuttle and
Rainbow Point
Shuttle
Yes. Limited. Bus capacities were reduced to 25%, resulting in a
corresponding 75% reduction in ridership, however if by service
you are referring to operational hours, the reduction by that
definition of service was closer to 25% due to cancelling the
Rainbow Pt Tour.
Ridership was intentionally restricted. We all but required riders
to wear the free facemasks that our contractor provided, as was
the Contractor's right (we checked with NPS solicitor) as a purely
contracted service.
No
• Plexiglass box built around driver compartment.
• The contractor and NPS instituted changes in rigorous consultation with local
and federal public health officials.
• Addition of bus monitors (1 person per bus) to hand out free facemasks and
enforce restricted capacity so that the driver didn't have to.
• Installed automatic hand sanitizer dispenser.
• Removal of 50% of the seats, restriction of ridership to 25 individuals = 25%.
• Use of electrostatic sprayers armed with NaDCC to entirely disinfect every bus
with additional less effective scrubbing with a bleach solution after completing
every circuit = once per hour.
• Posters designed by NPS demonstrating how traveling cohorts should cluster
with each other and social distance from strangers.
Yes. We will continue with the Bryce Canyon Shuttle COVID-19
mitigations that a few other NPS transit systems have adopted key
elements from. The only significant change we will be making from
2020 is that we are trading the staffing of bus monitors for the
technology of an outdoor speaker system that allows the drivers to
address the park visitor waiting at each bus stop with our COVID-19
safety messages before opening the doors and allowing the passengers
to board. We have also increased our peak hours to running with up to
7 buses instead of the usual 5 as we keep ridership capped at 25 people
until further notice.
CALO CALO Ferry
Service
Yes. Limited. Shorter trips, passenger capacity went from 49 to
30, closed from March 20th to May 20th, Less service available
due to rules and regulations by the State of North Carolina.
Lost ridership during limited capacity. There were less riders due
to being closed from March to May. Riders were annoyed
because they had to wear mask on an open vessel.
Yes
• Added a windshield on each boat for staff.
• All staff were always required to have masks on. Every employee's temperature
was taken before operating, periodic testing of all employees.
• Marked sidewalks in front of ticket booth and at the loading site, disinfected
boat daily, wiped boat seating area after each trip,
• All changes were done by the owner.
• Overall, the policy and physical changes worked great for Island Express Ferry
Service, LLC
Yes. IEFS continues to operate under the same guidance for 2020. They
are following the State of North Carolina Covid-19 policies.
CARL Electric Shuttle Yes. Limited. The shuttle only operated from October 2019 -
January 2020, there was no need for service in February or March
before the park closed in March. Shuttle service did not resume
for the remainder of 2020.
No
CHIS Island Packers Yes. Limited. Concessioner was closed until June, and then
permitted by Ventura County to operate at 40% (although they
only operated at 30% until August), and then capacity increased
to 50% in late October to present. Also, the Scorpion anchorage
is the park's most popular destination and the area was closed
for pier replacement. It was closed from November 2019 to
February 2021.
COVID affected ridership due to decreased vessel capacity,
however Island Packers was able to sell available tickets due to
steady demand for park visitation. Riders could not eat or drink
inside the vessel, and overall, there were far fewer large groups
and mainly same-household groups.
Yes
• All required COVID protocols were mandated by Ventura County based on CA
and federal guidelines. Park provided additional guidance.
• Operator made changes themselves.
• All employee’s temperatures checked upon reporting to work, if employees feel
ill they are told to stay home.
• Enhanced PPE usage (gloves and facemasks) and cleaning of vessels, contract
tracing, staggering shifts, dedicated vessel crews, back up crews if someone falls
ill, restricting personnel from bridge where practicable, visitors restricted and
limited to specific areas, restricting outside access to onboard berthing to
appropriate personnel, social distancing and no consuming food or drink inside
the vessels.
• Passenger changes: reduced capacities, proper PPE worn and social distancing
encouraged via markers on handrails, COVID protocols announced regularly
while underway, no inside consumption of food or drink, hand sanitizer made
available, protocols for turning away symptomatic passengers and evacuations
for visitors who show signs while in park, enhanced cleaning of vessels, and
added information upon booking tickets.
• Sharing with park all county correspondence, COVID protocols training for staff,
crew continuously monitoring decks to ensure distancing occurs, optional table
service to limit traffic at galley, reduced crew presence while maintaining safe
staffing levels, providing PPE and resources to employees.
Yes. Operator plans to increase runs with planned capacity increases of
65%, most crew getting vaccinated as essential transportation workers,
finding more work and tasks for employees who have been affected.
All changes made in 2020 continue through 2021 until new guidance
comes.
65
Unit System Name
Did the system operate? If yes, normally or limited
compared to 2019? Describe the impacts on ridership
Was the ATP
COVID guide
useful?
Physical and Operational Changes to Protect Drivers Plans to Operate in 2021 and Additional Changes
CUIS Land and
Legacies Tour
Yes. Limited. The Lands and Legacies Tour (LLT) operated from
October 2019 to March 17th, 2020 then shut down for the
remainder of the FY. Started limited operation April 12, 2021.
Yes
• Plexiglass to separate driver and passengers- concessioner installed.
• Only groups known to each other, mask mandates for all, open windows,
cleaning protocols, hand sanitizer available.
Yes. More frequent runs with less capacity because capacity is limited to
those known to each other. Plexiglass barrier, first bench seat taped off.
CUIS Cumberland
Island Ferry
Yes. Limited. Ferry operated normally from October 2019 to
March 16, 2020; March 17-June 25, 2020 the ferry did not
operate; June 26, 2020 to April 02, 2021 the ferry operated at
2/3rds capacity; April 03, 2021 the ferry is running at full
capacity.
Somewhat
• The Captain is in the wheelhouse away from any passengers.
• A mask mandate was put in place by the concessioner as soon as they began
operating; capacity limits were set for the inside cabin space.
• There was a 2/3 capacity limit up until April 2021
Yes. No changes- keep protocols in place.
CUVA Cuyahoga Valley
Scenic Railroad
Yes. Limited. They ran as normal until they discontinued
operations on March 13, 2020, for the remainder of the fiscal
year.
Not Aware
• Cancellation of service after March 13, 2021
• CVSR surveyed passengers in October after they participated in Fall Flyer
excursions. Notable results were: When we asked, “How safe did you feel while
boarding the train?” 95.78% of those who responded felt safe or extremely
safe. When we asked, “How safe did you feel on the train?” 93.64% of those
who responded felt safe or extremely safe. When we asked, “How safe did you
feel while deboarding the train?” 93.38% of those who responded felt safe or
extremely safe. When we asked, “Overall, how safe did you feel with CVSR's
Covid-19 Safety protocols in place?” 93.07% of those who responded felt safe
or extremely safe.
Yes. Shift to all online, pre-sale tickets; staff and volunteer temperature
screenings when arriving for duty; passenger temperature screening;
passengers asked COVID screening questions prior to boarding;
volunteers and staff training in cleaning and sanitizing; Each train had
an Environmental Technician assigned to it that cleaned and sanitized
the equipment throughout the ride as well as performing deeper
cleanings between trips; passengers boarded directly into their assigned
car instead of walking through; masks required for all passengers,
volunteers, and staff; Passengers restricted from walking throughout
the train and required to remain in their assigned car.
• Distancing markers were installed at boarding stations.
• Capacity on all train cars was reduced to 50% (or less in some
cases).
• Concession and edu-trainment car amenities were eliminated to
prevent congregating and crowds.
• Table cars had several tables removed with the remaining tables
spaced out to a 6-foot distance.
• Coach cars had plexiglass partitions installed between blocks of
seats.
DENA Bus Tours and
Shuttle Services
Yes. Limited. Diminished schedules. 50% capacity. Face
coverings. Abbreviated season - July to Sept.
Somewhat
• Contractor installed a barrier between driver and passengers.
• Drivers required to wear face coverings. Passengers strongly encouraged.
Yes. 50% capacity as of 3/16/21.
DINO Tram Transit Yes. Normally. People seemed to come out regardless of COVID
restrictions; if business is open, they will come.
Somewhat
• Drivers were given masks.
• Additional drivers were needed to be hired.
• Social distance spacing occurred by blocking off every other row.
• Additional Park base funding had to be utilized for Shuttle Cleaning to cover the
then-CDC requirements. The contract had to be added for cleaning; contractor
hired more cleaners and drivers while the park provided supplies at substantial
cost and impact to our budget.
Yes. Reducing cleaning efforts based on latest CDC guidance for
surfaces. Social distance staggering of seating.
EISE EISE Shuttle Yes. Limited. The EISE shuttle operated normally from October 1,
2019-March 15, 2020. and continued that posture for the
remainder of the fiscal year.
Not Aware
• EISE shuttle operations were ceased beginning March 16, 2020 through the
remainder of the fiscal year.
There is the possibility that the shuttle system could become operational
again (based on ever-changing guidance).
EUON NPS Shuttle Yes. Limited. We had normal operations until March 15. We
stopped all shuttle operations in on March 16. We resumed in
early October, limiting trips to family groups only. In mid-
November we stopped operations again until the end of the
calendar year. Reduced the number of users significantly.
Not Aware
• Our maintenance staff installed plexiglass in the shuttles to separate the driver
from the passengers.
• We stopped our open Saturday program (which does not require reservations).
• Only allowing small groups that know each other.
Yes. We plan to operate under the same restrictions as 2020, where we
are allowing family groups at first and no open Saturdays programs. We
may allow more passengers as some point but are still evaluating the
risk. We will maintain the plexiglass installed in 2020. We have no other
physical changes to the shuttle system.
FIIS Sailors Haven
Ferry
Yes. Limited. Delayed operating season (June-October). Ridership
was reduced.
Not Aware
• Masks required on ferries by Concessionaire.
• Required distancing on gathering platforms.
Yes. No new changes.
FIIS Watch Hill Ferry Yes. Limited. Did not operate in May or early June but resumed
service in late June. COVID-related delays. Similar ridership, no
reports of unwanted behavior.
Not Aware
• Masks required on ferries.
• Boarding procedure adjusted to ensure physical distancing.
Yes. Plexiglass barriers, taping off rows and locations for pre-boarding.
FOMA FOMA Ferry
Service
Yes. Limited. Service limited due to Hurricane Dorian damage
recovery to ferry boat dock and from COVID-19 pandemic
closure of park. Overall, system only operated 20 days in FY20.
Somewhat
• N/A. Park shutdown for remainder of fiscal year.
Yes. Planned changes for FY2021 include capacity reductions. Seating
restrictions plans will be utilized to reduce ferry capacity for FY2021.
FOSU FOSU Ferry
Service
Yes. Limited. Park closure occurred mid-March through end of
May. Fort Sumter Tours operation resumed early June with
Not Aware
• Captains operate from the wheelhouse and already protected from passengers.
Vessel crew were protected through a variety of pro-active operational changes
Yes. Capacities continue to be reduced to ensure 6' social distancing
can be maintained. Number of trips that depart during high visitation
66
Unit System Name
Did the system operate? If yes, normally or limited
compared to 2019? Describe the impacts on ridership
Was the ATP
COVID guide
useful?
Physical and Operational Changes to Protect Drivers Plans to Operate in 2021 and Additional Changes
capacity limited to 39%. It also ran on a reduced schedule of 5-
trips instead of 6-trips during what would normally be the high
visitation season.
There were fewer riders overall. This reflects an overall downward
trend in tourism reported by the City of Charleston's tourism and
visitor's bureau.
that included additional cleaning/sanitizing, staff health check-ins before
boarding, social distancing measures, and required mask wearing.
• Seating was removed and spread out to promote social distancing. Hand
sanitizer stations were set up. Concessioner submitted proposal for changes that
was accepted by the park.
• New and increased cleaning/sanitizing procedures, hand sanitizing stations,
social distancing, limited capacity, masks were required per City of Charleston
ordinance.
season is reduced to ensure sufficient time for cleaning/ sanitizing
between trips. Masks are required. Seats have been removed and
spread out. Hand sanitizing stations are set up.
GLAC Visitor
Transportation
System (VTS)
No Yes. We have designed a vinyl barrier to separate the driver, purchased
touchless hand sanitizer dispensers to be mounted in each bus, and
have put in place a mandatory mask policy for riders of the system.
Additionally, we plan on operating at limited capacity to allow for some
distancing of rider groups. We are working through the process of
incorporating a ticketed system for the VTS, which will give us more
control of the number of riders we have. Glacier National Park owns our
fleet of transit buses and are planning on self-delivering the system this
year.
GLCA Antelope Point No Yes. TBD on CDC guidance with concerning mask and distances.
Limiting the number of passengers is a possibility.
GLCA Boat Tours No Yes. TBD on CDC guidance with concerning mask and distances.
Restricting number of passengers.
GLCA Flatwater Tour No Yes. TBD on CDC guidance with concerning mask and distances.
Restricting number of passengers.
GLCA SR276 Passenger
Ferry
Yes. Normally. Yes
• DOT employees stayed in the wheelhouse while passengers were on the Ferry.
• Riders were asked to stay in their vehicles or with their travelling group
Yes. Same as 2020.
GOGA Alcatraz Cruises
Ferry
Yes. Limited. The system operated normally through the mid-
March 2020. Once the shelter in place for COVID-19 was put
into place, the Island was closed to public tours until August
15th. On August 15th restarted passenger service, at a very
limited capacity. December 4th the Island closed once again due
to COVID-19 through the end of the year.
Fewer riders due to COVID restrictions on capacity, riders much
less apt to cluster together.
Somewhat
• Physical barriers were put into place to keep the operators and guests at a safe
distance from each other. These changes were suggested by the CDC & State of
CA, required by the Park.
• Operational safeguards were put into place to distance the operators from the
guests due to social distancing guidelines. These changes were suggested by the
CDC & State of CA, supported by the Park.
Yes. Strict passenger limits, less frequent trips. Covering seats with
wipeable materials, erecting barriers, and signage, using social-
distancing markers.
GRCA Grand Canyon
Railway
Yes. Limited. Service was suspended from March 20, 2020
through June 15, 2020 and train occupancy was reduced to 35%
of normal when operations resumed in June. Ridership impacted
by suspension of service and reduced train occupancy.
Not Aware
• Train employees had to wear face coverings.
• Passengers had to physically distance.
• Passengers were required to wear face coverings and train capacity was reduced
to 35% of normal.
Yes. Same as 2020.
GRCA South Rim
Shuttle Service
Yes. Limited. The system did not operate from mid-March to Sept
5, 2020. Once service resumed, only two of the four routes were
in operation. The buses operated at significantly reduced
capacity, so there were more buses operating per route.
Since there was no service from mid-March to Sept 5, ridership
was decreased. It was also decreased due to reducing capacity
(only 15 passengers allowed per bus versus 70 in a normal year)
Not Aware
• Contractor installed driver shields/doors.
• Entering and exiting through the rear door only, face masks required to ride a
shuttle bus, hand sanitizer dispensers installed on each bus, limiting capacity to
15 passengers, roping off seats to encourage physical distancing
Yes. Spring 2021 service will be the same as autumn 2020.
GRTE Jenny Lake
Shuttle Boat
Yes. Limited. Social distancing entailed closing off 'every other
row' between parties. This resulted in a 30-40% reduction in
passenger capacity each run. However, demand remained high
and the total number of passengers accommodated was not
significantly lower than 2017-2019 averages. Scenic cruises were
cancelled in height of season to devote all vessels to full time
shuttle operations.
Not Aware
• Concessioner implemented COVID mitigations that included plexiglass barrier at
register, and mandating face coverings as a concessioner policy.
• Concessioner implemented COVID mitigations that included social distancing,
face coverings, increase surface disinfection/cleaning.
• Every other row was roped off on vessels to promote social distancing.
• Concessioner implemented COVID mitigations, including physical distancing
markers for visitors in line, face coverings, etc. Cash was not accepted/credit
cards only.
Yes. The Concessioner has a similar plan to 2020 for 2021 operations.
The concessioner may increase capacity on the boats (which are open
air) and keep rows open, with the intention of reducing the lines on
each side, where its harder to enforce social distancing, and present a
longer duration of exposure (1 hour) in comparison to the 7-10 minute
boat ride.
67
Unit System Name
Did the system operate? If yes, normally or limited
compared to 2019? Describe the impacts on ridership
Was the ATP
COVID guide
useful?
Physical and Operational Changes to Protect Drivers Plans to Operate in 2021 and Additional Changes
• No surveys were conducted specific to the pandemic. Some visitor comments
online included opinions on the Concessioner's COVID mitigations. (some
described it as effective, some described it as not effective, some didn't think it
was necessary).
GUIS GUIS Ferry
Service
Yes. Limited. Overall, less service available. The season start was
delayed until May 15 due to COVID closures. The park then
closed again for Hurricane Sally in Sept 2020 which damaged
both vessels and ended the season. FL Saw a capacity limit on
board the vessels of 50%. This did not affect overall ridership
though as the boats were running at only 30% capacity during
2019.
Somewhat
• Both parties made changes due to COVID. The Concessionaire prepared a very
detailed and thorough mitigation guide and the park limited capacity and
required masks at all times when encountering visitors or other staff.
• Limited capacity and social distancing while on board were implemented.
Yes. Park currently plans to maintain the limited capacity, social
distancing, and mask requirements. Hurricane damages will require
alternative schedules and landing sites. Boats are still being repaired so
start time has already been delayed.
GUIS Ship Island Ferry Yes. Limited. Season start was delayed first by park COVID
closures and then by damages to Ship Island facilities from
Tropical Storm Cristobal. Once started, boats were operating
under 50% capacity. Season abruptly ended in September due to
additional facility damages from tropical systems. Fewer riders
due to limited capacity. Riders did not like the limitations.
Somewhat
• Both parties. Limited interaction between staff and visitors on board. Social
distancing enforced while on board.
• Different boarding and disembarking procedures to avoid clustering of visitors.
• Six-foot patterns established and only online reservations, so no paper copy
tickets.
• Informal surveys-most people did not like the limitations on capacity. Most
understood the reasoning behind the changes.
Yes. Still planned to start with limited capacity and mask requirements.
Start date delayed until at least the end of May due to ongoing
hurricane repairs. No paper tickets (only online reservations and
ticketing), limited capacities and mask requirements. Six-foot distancing
markings and limited seating on each deck
HAFE HAFE Shuttle
Transport
Yes. Limited. Buses didn't run due to COVID from March until
last week in November. Due to COVID and the buses not running
ridership was down. Most people who visited the park walked.
Somewhat
• We installed plexiglass barrier for the drivers and taped off seating to limit
number of riders per trip. We put up signs about COVID restrictions and safety
• We cleaned the buses in the mornings and during the driver’s lunch breaks and
at the end of their shift.
• We taped off seats to limit the number of riders per trip and offered them mask
if they didn't have them. We put up signs about COVID restrictions and safety.
Yes. We are following CDC recommendations for hauling riders. We are
following CDC recommendations for COVID. plexiglass barriers, taping
off seats
HOFR FDR Tram No Yes. The park is currently closed to visitors due to the limited space of
the historical sites and the inability of the park to provide a "COVID
safe" tour of the sites. When/If the park opens safely for visitors, safety
SOPs will be developed for the cleaning and disinfecting the vehicle.
More frequent runs will be allowed to reduce the number of passengers
allowing for proper social distancing.
The park is investigating plexiglass barriers between rows of seats and
visitors separated in the rows (by individuals or families. Since the tram
is open air, it does present a better environment than if it were
enclosed. Other procedures could be instituted such as taping off rows
to ensure proper distancing.
The 2 shuttle buses listed are no longer in the park property system and
both were disposed of through GSA Excess. Funds were available
through CAT III to purchase a 12-passenger van to replace the buses
but due to COVID and not operating the shuttle, funds were withdrawn
to be made available again in FY 21. Once funds are available, the park
will purchase the van for future operations.
ISRO Isle Royale
Seaplanes
Yes. Normally. More riders than normal due to other
transportation not operating.
Not Aware
• Mask Use, cleaning of aircraft.
Yes. Normal operations save for Mask Use and Continued aircraft
cleaning between flights.
ISRO MV Ranger III Yes. Limited. No public service. Only essential staff. Ridership was
down 400%
Not Aware
• NPS Staff only, more cleaning, hand sanitizer, social distancing, keeping crew
from passengers.
Yes. 50% capacity, social distancing, mask requirements, cleaning, etc.
KEMO KEMO Shuttle
Bus
Yes. Limited. Stop work order began in March 2020 due to
COVID-19, Shuttle bus ran on weekends from Oct 1 2019 -
March 2020
Somewhat
• Plexi glass was installed by NPS.
• NPS ensures that bus was disinfected after every trip.
LOWE Historic Trolley Yes. Limited. No service from mid-March 2020 through June
2020. Limited service from July through mid-September 2020 (5
days-per week, instead of 7). No more than one trolley operating
per day (instead of 2 or 3). Much fewer riders overall. No
noticeable changes to behavior
Not Aware
• Increased cleaning protocols made by the park.
• Closed seating to increase social distancing, made by the park.
Yes. Same as 2020.
68
Unit System Name
Did the system operate? If yes, normally or limited
compared to 2019? Describe the impacts on ridership
Was the ATP
COVID guide
useful?
Physical and Operational Changes to Protect Drivers Plans to Operate in 2021 and Additional Changes
MEVE Long House
Trailhead Tram
and Half-day
Ranger Guided
Yes. Limited. Operated from June to September for a shorter
time, schedule was based on demand from sales and passenger
capacity was limited to 50%. Overall, less use and less service.
Reduced demand for half-day tours, there were less riders and
less riders per vehicle to adhere to distancing protocols. Most
riders adhered to COVID-19 protocols such as facial coverings.
Yes
• The concessioner implemented facial coverings, distancing to the extent
practicable, and the vehicles were cleaned between runs.
• Facial coverings were recommended, vehicle passenger capacity was reduced for
distancing, and the vehicles were cleaned between runs.
Yes. Continue reservation system, runs based on reservations, facial
coverings, distancing, and reduced passenger capacity.
MUWO Muir Woods
Shuttle
Yes. Limited. The system ran as normal between October 2019
and March 2020. In March 2020, the system was suspended due
to COVID. There has been no service since that time, but the park
is currently in the process of restarting service for summer 2021
with limited capacity.
Yes
• Our service provider has installed driver plexiglass, and other mitigation for the
driver. When the system restarts, we will limit capacity by approximately 50%.
The system will be restarted managed by the Muir Woods Reservation
system, which is standard. When the system restarts, we will limit
capacity of the shuttle by approximately 50% to start, and adaptively
manage as the year progresses.
Plexiglass to protect drivers and taping off rows will continue to be
included.
NAMA Bug Bus Tours
Washington DC
Yes. Limited. Operations were halted due to COVID-19 from
March until July. Beginning in July there was a revised schedule
of operations Thursday - Monday with limited stops. Much less
riders in 2020 due to COVID-19.
Somewhat
• All riders were required to wear masks along with all staff members. Only every
other row of seating was available for seating for social distancing purposes.
• The concessioner only offered riding tours with no hop on hop off as is normally
offered. The buses were also cleaned and sanitized between uses.
Yes. Same operations as in 2020 with increased days of operations back
to 7 days a week. No new changes are being planned at this time, but
close attention paid to CDC, local, and NPS guidance.
NAMA DC Circulator Yes. Limited. The system operated in a limited basis during 2020.
From January 1, 2020 to March 18, 2020 the route operated
regular hours. From the period of March 19, 2020 to September
19, 2020 the route did not operate per mandate from the Mayor
of the District of Columbia as part of the District's Emergency
Order to address quarantine and social distancing due to COVID-
19. On September 20, 2020-December 22, 2020 we operated
the National Mall Route per regular hours. From December 23,
2020 till December 31, 2020 the route did not operate per
mandate from the Mayor of the District of Columbia to address
holiday additional measures to promote quarantine and social
distancing.
Ridership drop throughout the DC Circulator system by 89%.
This impacted all route of the service.
Not Aware
• DC Circulator instituted backdoor boarding on all its routes including the
National Mall Route, as well as, free rides. Since March 18, 2020 to date the DC
Circulator has not charge fares to riders as part of the measures taken to
promote distancing and support essential travel services. Riders were limited to
access to the front of the bus to speak to operators.
• The Mayor also instituted limited service throughout all the DC Circulator service
and suspension of the Mall route to curve any entertainment activities.
• Towards the end of December 2020, 1/3 of the fleet at the time had installed
operator compartment barriers. By the end of April 2021 all buses will have the
compartment installed.
Yes. No changes are being considered at this time.
OZAR Akers Ferry Yes. Limited. The Ferry was closed from April - May 9, 2020 due
to park COVID closure and then periodically throughout the
season due to river flood stage. Yes, there was less service
available.
When the park reopened in May 2020, park visitation was high
and remained so throughout the season. However, float visitors
typically are not Ferry users. Ferry users tend to be local citizens
and they did not utilize the Ferry as per usual.
Somewhat
• Concession operated. Concessioner made changes. Generally, just an increased
awareness to maintain socially distance. Physical changes were already in place
due to the nature of the operation. The Ferry operation takes place outdoors
and social distancing is typical of the routine operation. The operator is outdoors
but the visitor remains in their car throughout river crossing.
Yes. Social distancing will remain in place and mask wearing will be
implemented when social distancing is not possible.
PERL Ford Island Tour Yes. Limited. Operations closed in March 2020 due to COVID. Not Aware
• Park and partner closed, and shuttle did not operate.
Yes. Masks are required, physical distancing is maintained. Limited
capacity on each tour.
PERL USS Arizona
Memorial Tour
Yes. Limited. System was shut down from March 17, 2020 - July
10, 2020
Not Aware
• US Navy required visitors to wear masks.
• Park and US Navy limited schedules and limited capacity of boats to 1/3 of
normal to keep physical distancing.
Yes. Masks are required, physical distancing is maintained. Limited
capacity on each tour.
PIRO Pictured Rocks
Cruises
Yes. Limited. Only filled vessels to half capacity. Slightly less riders
- turned over the boats more times a day.
Somewhat
• Opened all the windows on the vessel to have a steady breeze
• Half capacity on the tours and cleaning the vessel halfway through the operation
• Closed off every other seat onboard operating at half capacity
• The concessionaire put a restriction on themselves to wear masks for everyone
involved and run their operation at half capacity.
Yes. Same as 2020.
ROMO Rocky Mountain
National Park
Shuttle
Yes. Limited. Reduced capacity of shuttle, 20% of normal
capacity, no hiker shuttle was run, times remained the same. Less
due to limited capacity due to state guidelines.
Somewhat
• The was panels installed in the driver areas of the shuttle to separate the driver
from passengers.
• Reduced capacity and spacing of riders throughout the shuttle.
Yes. Same as implemented in 2020
69
Unit System Name
Did the system operate? If yes, normally or limited
compared to 2019? Describe the impacts on ridership
Was the ATP
COVID guide
useful?
Physical and Operational Changes to Protect Drivers Plans to Operate in 2021 and Additional Changes
SEKI Giant Forest
Shuttle
Yes. Limited. Winter service operated normally in
November/December 2019 and January 2020. The service did not
operate at all in summer 2020. It normally runs from Memorial
Day to Labor Day.
Somewhat The system is scheduled to return in summer 2021. Capacity limits
(likely no more than 50 percent of seated capacity). Only two of our
four routes will be running. Those two routes will operate with about
twice as many vehicles as usual, in an attempt to keep up with demand.
We will focus on providing access to our primary destinations (the
Sherman Tree and Giant Forest Museum). Planning on installing
plexiglass barriers.
SHEN Rapidan Camp
Tour
Yes. Limited. was only in operation in October 2019. No tours
were provided in 2020 due to COVID safety restrictions.
Not Aware As of this date, it is not determined if we be able to operate Rapidan
Tours. If COVID safety guidelines allow, we hope to resume tours for
fall of 2021.
SLBE Manitou Island
Transit
Yes. Limited. Manitou Island Transit just operated from October
26 - November 2, 2019 in FY2020.
Not Aware Unknown. Manitou Island Transit is working on their COVID plan at the
time of data collection.
STEA Scranton Limited
& Live Steam
Excursions
Yes. Limited. There was less service available because we were
unable to operate during our peak season due to COVID
restrictions both state and federal. We only operated pre-COVID
October, November and December of 2019. Less riders overall.
Not Aware
• The park changed the number of people allowed in the locomotive cab. Only
two people are allowed in a locomotive cab and they must wear a mask.
Yes. less capacity per passenger coaches, additional cleaning, taping off
seats/ rows, perhaps protective films to place over historic surfaces so
cleaning will not damage the material.
STLI Statue of Liberty
Ferries
Yes. Limited. In FY 20 STLI was closed from March 17, 2020 to
July 20, 2020 due to COVID-19. STLI operated in a limited
fashion using an off-peak (Winter) schedule throughout the rest
of FY 20.
Yes
• Masks, S Distancing, reduced capacities, temp checks, increased and enhanced
cleaning, all contractor made
• Signage and social distancing stenciling.
• Reduced capacities, social distancing, masks required, encouraged to travel on
open air decks of the vessel. Contractor made
• While the Operator’s mitigation efforts were comprehensive and effective the
large drop in ridership was also a mitigation factor. Vessel capacity was limited
to 50% of normal but ridership was at 10-15% of normal. State and local
outreach encouraged out of state and international visitors to forgo visiting STLI
during the pandemic.
Yes. STLI ferries remain limited to 50% through FY 21. More boats in
the fleet are added to the schedule as ridership returns. Drivers operate
vessels from an enclosed wheelhouse. Visitors are required to wear
masks and remain socially distant.
TAPR TAPR Bus Tour Yes. Limited. We finished our bus tour season at the end of
October 2019. COVID hit in March 2020 and we discontinued
bus tours. The season would have started end of April 2020. Bus
tours have been cancelled for 2021.
Not Aware Bus tours will not resume until we can safely operate the tours safely for
staff and visitors alike.
VAFO History of Valley
Forge Trolley
Tour
Yes. Limited. Limited tour dates were offered due to COVID.
Tours were not offered during the months of Jan - September
due to COVID.
Not Aware Regarding whether we plan to offer tours in 2021, we can't right now
but we hope to in the future. To be determined based on the guidance
& recommendations at the time that we resume.
YELL Historic
Yellowstone Bus
Tours
Yes. Limited. We did not operate the Historic Busses during May
through October of 2020. The information provided is for limited
use of October 2019.
Not Aware Yes. Mask always required while in the vehicle. Guest temperatures will
be taken prior to boarding. No passengers will be permitted to ride in
the front of the vehicle with the guide. Sanitizing vehicle whenever
changeover of passengers occurs. Barriers will be installed between the
driver and passenger compartment. Each row of seats will be barriered
off as these vehicles have a separate door for each row of seats. Only
three social bubble groups of up to 4 will be permitted per bench seat.
YELL Xanterra Parks &
Resorts
Interpretive Bus
Torus
Yes. Limited. We did not operate tours from May through
December 2020. The information provided is for the months of
October 2019, December 2019. January 2020, February 2020
and March 2020.
Not Aware Yes. Our current plan is to use a limited number of minibuses during
the summer of 2021 unless social bubble restrictions are removed. Our
Historic Yellow Bus fleet will provide most tour opportunities for
summer 2021.
Mask always required while in the vehicle. Guest temperatures will be
taken prior to boarding. No passengers will be permitted to ride in the
front of the vehicle with the guide. Tour offerings will be limited.
Sanitizing vehicle whenever changeover of passengers occurs. Barriers
will be installed between the driver and passenger compartment. Only
social bubble groups will be seated with 6 feet of distance between
non-social bubble groups.
YELL Xanterra Parks &
Resorts
Interpretive
Yes. Normally. COVID did not affect our FY 2020 winter season
as the winter season operated between mid-December 2019 to
early March 2020.
Not Aware
•
Yes. Mandatory masking, less capacity, social distancing between social
bubbles, plexiglass barriers between driver and passenger
compartments, and temperature checking.
70
Unit System Name
Did the system operate? If yes, normally or limited
compared to 2019? Describe the impacts on ridership
Was the ATP
COVID guide
useful?
Physical and Operational Changes to Protect Drivers Plans to Operate in 2021 and Additional Changes
Snowcoaches
Tours
YELL YELL Boat No Yes. Six-foot distancing. Face coverings required. Temperature checks.
Barriers between passengers and crew. Closing seats to allow for six
foot distancing.
YELL YELL Snow
Coaches
Yes. Normally. Season was ending as Covid-19 was ramping up -
YELL snow coach tours ended in March 2020 for the season.
Yes Yes. Numerous mitigations measures were put in place for the
following season snow coach season (Dec 2020 - March 2021). All
tours must adhere to current CDC guidance, limited snow coach
capacity, limited indoor facility space, facemask requirements while
onboard, plexiglass dividers between drivers and guests, info. collect to
ease contact tracing, pre-trip screening for COVID exposure, etc.
Limited capacity while onboard snow coaches, some vehicles had
plexiglass barriers installed, mask requirement while on board.
YOSE YARTS: Yosemite
Area Regional
Transportation
System
Yes. Limited. Reduced seating availability in buses from 48 seats
to 30; required advanced reservation for 30 seats; provided
additional capacity for 8 "walk-up," unreserved seats. Passengers
were required to wear face masks and stay 6 feet apart. Annual
ridership declined from ~115,000 to 47,000. Nobody was
monitoring rider behavior.
Yes
• Cooperator required passengers to wear masks and mandated physical
distancing among those who were not already traveling together.
• The NPS closed the park for three months (March, April, and May) so as not to
attract long-distance travel, pursuant to the local and state public health official
recommendation and guidance to stay home.
• Physical distancing among parties who were not already traveling together.
Yes. YARTS will continue to require advance ticket reservations, masks,
and distancing. These operational requirements will remain in effect
until the infection and hospitalization rates subside. No changes from
practices imposed in 2020.
ZION Zion Shuttle Yes. Limited. revised schedules, and limited seating capacity.
There were less seats available and a reduced number of riders.
Somewhat
• Plastic curtains were installed to provide a barrier between boarding/deboarding
passengers. This was approved by the park and installed by the contractor. Buses
disinfected twice daily.
• Passenger seats were removed by the contractor to lower the number of
passengers that could ride and to demonstrate social distancing. No standing
was allowed.
Yes. More frequent runs with limited seating as in 2020. Masks
required per CDC guidance.
