The last, most congested park

The National Park Service is stepping up to address the Going-to-the-Sun Road congestion issue, but I believe their announced plan will not deliver the scale of improvements necessary to reset the visitors experience back to The Last, Best Place promise of days past.

In 2017 the world-class analytics skills of Carnegie Mellon University were applied to Sun Road vehicle usage and parking data to model, test and simulate the efficacy of various Park Service suggested corridor management policy options. Apparently the analytical insights were too bold to share as none of the highly acclaimed work was shared or referenced in the recently released Sun Road corridor management plan. That work should be revealed, discussed and incorporated into the Sun Road Corridor Management Plan narrative now underway.

The thumbnail sketch of the fall 2017 CMU work revealed the following based on Park Service provided visitor data:

•On average, 6,021 vehicles entered Sun Road each day during July 2017. Over 6,900 vehicles on the busiest of days.

•Almost one-third (~1,945) of the average daily vehicles entered the Sun Road before 11 a.m.

•Gate-to–gate, Sun Road has approximately 2,070 parking spaces (including those at Apgar transit, Lake McDonald Lodge etc.) in total.

•Virtually all parking spaces were occupied in July 2017 by 10:30 a.m. and some visitor-priority destination areas even earlier. And we all know this has gotten worse during comparable peak season days since 2017.

Simulations validated what we many of us already know, 40% of Sun Road visitor’s vehicles can’t find a parking space at their desired destination stops during prime hours during peak season days.

Simulations also demonstrated that doubling Sun Road parking capacity to 4,140 spaces would improve parking success (visitors able to park at their desired destination on their first attempt) by only 9%.

However, reducing the average parking time during peak periods by 16% for the existing parking capacity would achieve the same 9% improvement. In other words, managing parking time is a more effective policy lever than adding parking capacity. Not to mention that adding substantial parking capacity across Sun Road would likely never gain support or get through the gauntlet of permitting requirements.

Park Service hiker audit data reveals that there are 5,500–6,500 hikers traversing trails that have trailheads along Sun Road on a typical high-season day. If day hikers all travelled to these trailheads four to a vehicle they would absorb over 70% of the total parking capacity along Sun Road. It is clear that individuals come early and occupy a massive portion of the most desired parking spots for lengthy periods. (I plead guilty to this, and know I am not alone).

Simulation and optimization techniques demonstrated that if there were short-term parking policies employed during the high season, coupled with a high-service level, reservation-based hiker shuttle system, then almost 90% of touring visitor vehicles could find a parking space at their desired destinations.

In the fall of 2018, another CMU project team worked in conjunction with the Park Service to model the economics and dimension the requirements for a reliably-predictable reservation based hiker shuttle system scaled to support the 6,000 day hikers along the Sun Road. Specifically, providing scheduled services aligned to hiking demands (volumes, departure times, and hike durations by trailheads) on a reservation basis. The 2018 work revealed the following insights:

•Existing shuttle operations have 296 parking spaces for visitors — 93 on the east side at St Mary’s visitor center and 203 at the west side Apgar Transit center.

•Shuttle transit center parking capacity requirements to support 6,000 day hikers would need to be in the range of 1,300 – 1,700 spaces or about five times the existing capacity.

•125 –140 shuttles would be required to provide “order to promise” round-trip services on a reservation basis for 6,000 day hikers or over four times the existing shuttle fleet capacity.

The existing shuttle operates on a first-come first-served basis with frequently long frustrating queues and costs the Park Service about $24 (including capitalization costs of the fleet) per round-trip rider. An “order to promise” system with predictably reliable service levels would cost under $30 per user round trip including capitalization/maintenance of the larger fleet and near but outside the park parking scaled to support the entire day hiker demand. Yes, an economically feasible high-impact solution.

The recently released plan suggests adding 100 additional parking spaces and a few new shuttles. Needless to say, the additional spaces would be helpful but would be filled literally within minutes of the existing “lot full” time-periods during the peak season and would not make a dent in the day-hiker load across the corridor — a teaser solution but not aligned with the scale required for existing demand much less, God forbid, any growth. And adding a few extra shuttles to the existing sub-scale system is also just dabbling at another unfunded solution, much like the 100 new parking space suggestion.

In the end, the GNP community needs to decide what fundamental changes need to be made to not only address the growing congestion challenge but to also ensure for those lucky enough to visit Glacier that they enjoy their experience too.

I am personally an advocate of limiting visitation levels to ensure we preserve and protect our beloved park and ensure the safety of our visitors. But, regardless of the level of visitation that is allowed, visitors who spend their precious dollars and vacation hours to get to the gates of our park should be able to write the grandest of Glacier memories and not have them ruined by congestion and the rumblings that unhappy crowding creates.

In the age of social media and instant reporting, the Park Service should get ahead of the curve and make visitor experience satisfaction a key performance metric that is objectively measured, tracked and reported at all major parks on an ongoing basis. I do believe that the terrific Glacier leaders who I know would embrace this if given the resources and the opportunity of empowerment to take the steps necessary to address issues as they are revealed.

I challenge the Park Service to objectively assess the Sun Road corridor with rigorous data, applied analytics and mathematically tested/simulated policy options to shape viable solutions that actually are substantive to address our high-season visitation challenges. It’s a data world and this level of science is accessible and can be applied. At 3 million-plus visitors annually and growing, application of analytical sciences and skills should be expected and made public. Perhaps one of the many theme parks in Orlando could spare a few industrial engineers and data scientists to help out our great but overcrowded parks.

­—Joe Raudabaugh lives in Whitefish