Yosemite Valley Plan SEIS, Volume III, Chapter 4: Part 6

Chapter 4 ~ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (cont.)

Section 4.13 ~ Transportation (cont.)

103. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should clarify the rationale for eliminating parking lots in Yosemite Valley.

"I saw the parking lot in front of the post office/visitor center/Village store area eliminated. Evidently the parking at Mirror Lake has been eliminated. Evidently the parking at Curry Village is to be eliminated. Why, when there really isn’t a traffic problem . . . ? The problem solving here reminds me that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. . . Does it make sense to reduce the parking to a 500 car lot at Camp 6 and then create three huge staging areas at Badger Pass, Crane Flat and El Portal? (Individual, Ahwahnee, CA - #329)

Response: Parking lots have been removed in the past as actions to implement the General Management Plan and to solve localized existing congestion problems. Parking at Mirror Lake was removed as part of an action to remove private vehicle traffic from the Happy Isles Loop Road and the road to Mirror Lake. Automobile access was replaced by access on Valley shuttle buses (visitors with disabilities and an approved placard can still access Mirror Lake in a private vehicle). The demand for parking at Mirror Lake was far greater than the number of parking spaces. As a result, vehicles were parked along the roadside on the Happy Isles Loop Road and vehicle traffic was increased by visitors looking for parking. By doing away with private vehicle access and providing shuttle service, the visitor experience has been improved, and traffic congestion in the Mirror Lake and Happy Isles Loop area has been eliminated. Parking was removed from the front of the post office and visitor center to provide a pedestrian-oriented experience in the core of Yosemite Village and to allow restoration of oak woodland habitat. The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes to further reduce parking in Yosemite Valley to help achieve the goals of the General Management Plan as outlined in Vol. IA, Chapter 1, Purpose and Need. The number of parking spaces would be reduced to allow the restoration of highly valued resources.

The Yosemite Valley Plan proposes to remove day-visitor parking from the Curry Orchard and expand parking in the Yosemite Village area. The specific location and design of the parking area near Yosemite Village would be determined in subsequent design activities. The location near Yosemite Village would be more convenient for day visitors, since it would be within walking distance of the Visitor Center and other visitor support facilities. Visitors would have easier access to information on activities in the Valley and they would be able to board shuttle buses to all destinations in the Valley. The parking location in Yosemite Village would significantly reduce the distance driven in the Valley by day visitors, resulting in lower vehicle emissions and in less noise from private vehicle traffic.

The proposed improvements to parking and the implementation of a traveler information and traffic management system would reduce recurring problems with traffic congestion in Yosemite Village and at Yosemite Lodge.

242. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should re-evaluate the amount of day-visitor parking available in Yosemite Valley.

"If the total amount of overnight visitors is being reduced, why can’t the number of day users be increased? The 18241 limit of the 1980 GMP was based on the number of parking spots available. However, if there are less overnighters and employees parking, then that would free up parking for day users, so there would be parking for many more than 550-800 day use cars. If more day users take the bus, then they are not limited by number of parking spaces, and the justification for the 18241 limit no longer exists." (Individual, San Diego, CA - #3479)

"Maintain at least 1,000 parking places in the Valley." (Individual, Oakhurst, CA - #129)

"We also request that day-use parking spots be continued to a minimum of 1,600 spaces and employee parking be in addition to and separate from the public parking spots." (Individual, Oakhurst, CA - #6157)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS alternatives would provide parking to support varying levels of day-visitor use. Alternatives with less overnight accommodations would provide more day-visitor parking. The plan does not propose limits on total visitation.

To accomplish the five broad goals of the General Management Plan, the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes to reduce parking in Yosemite Valley, thereby reducing traffic congestion and allowing the restoration of highly valued resources. This document recognizes that for the foreseeable future, parking will continue to be needed in Yosemite Valley but could be reduced and relocated to diminish its impacts. The alternatives in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS would provide a range in the number of day-visitor parking spaces in the Valley with additional parking for day visitors at out-of-Valley locations, where needed. The Preferred Alternative would provide 550 day-visitor parking spaces in the Valley.

8. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should not reduce the number of parking spaces in Yosemite Valley.

"I am writing this letter to voice my opposition to the recently unveiled Yosemite Management Plan. Although a flexible secondary transportation system into the Park would be desirable for high volume days, removing so many parking spaces from the Valley floor and essentially markedly reducing car traffic seems a very draconian measure to take for a situation that appears a couple of times in the summer. This measure will markedly reduce access to the Park for daytime users such as photographers and rock climbers, who use their cars to traverse the valley floor." (Individual, Camarillo, CA - #9)

"I am against reducing the day-use parking in the Valley to only 550 cars, less than 10% of the original parking that was dispersed throughout the Valley." (Individual, Somis, CA - #1808)

"I have serious concerns regarding the proposed number of parking spaces at Yosemite Valley that would be eliminated under the preferred alternative. Like you, I agree that at times Yosemite Valley experiences severe traffic congestion. Such congestion is neither good for the Park, nor the visitor. However, it is my understanding that congestion of this nature only exists a few days a year. While it is clear that for those days a different, more efficient transportation management strategy is needed. I believe that permanently reducing the number of parking spaces to 550 would only result in unnecessarily hampering the ease of visitation for many day-use travelers during times of the year in which visitation does not result in traffic congestion." (U.S. Representative, Washington, DC - #4292)

"Please leave the amount of parking spaces that are in place now, less causes more gridlock. I can’t think of anyone wanting to drive all the way to Badger Pass to get on a bus to then go down to the Valley. Wouldn’t it be better to park in a large designated lot or structure in the Valley floor and be shuttled around on electric trams? Some parking lots are still needed as the traffic is only bad a few days out of the year. On those days travelers could be notified by the signs in Mariposa and Oakhurst." (Individual, Bass Lake, CA - #54)

Response: The alternatives considered in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS were developed in part to implement the General Management Plan goal of reducing traffic and its related congestion.

The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS Preferred Alternative does call for a reduction in day-visitor parking spaces and consolidation of day-visitor parking into a single parking lot in Yosemite Valley. However, this reduction of in-Valley parking and the related plans for out-of-Valley parking and shuttles, restoration, and visitor information are designed to render great improvements both in visitor experience and in ecological restoration. Given the popularity of Yosemite Valley, these efforts would help the National Park Service move toward the ultimate goal of freeing the Valley from the environmental and experiential degradation caused by thousands of vehicles, and facilitating nonmotorized modes of transportation around the Valley.

The reduction in parking in Yosemite Valley would allow portions of Northside Drive to be closed to traffic and converted to a multi-use paved trail. Northside Drive from Stoneman Bridge to Yosemite Village would be removed to restore the natural flow of ground water and surface water between the Merced River and the Ahwahnee Meadow. Northside Drive would be closed to vehicle traffic between Yosemite Lodge and the El Capitan crossover, and would be converted to a multi-use paved trail. Removing traffic from these parts of the Valley would offer visitors safe areas for biking and would provide large areas of the Valley near the Merced River that would be unaffected by the sight, sound, and exhaust of vehicles. Removing day-visitor parking spaces would reduce traffic congestion which is consistent with the goals of the 1980 General Management Plan.

To ensure access, the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS would greatly expand shuttle bus service. Photographers, rock climbers, and general visitors undertaking other activities would be able to travel throughout the Valley via shuttle buses.

566. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should not base day-visitor parking levels on peak winter use.

"The day-visitor parking premise in alternatives 2 and 4 are an unbelievable leap of logic. It is fundamental error to use ‘the number of day-visitor vehicles that enter the Valley on a peak winter day to establish the number of 550 for peak summer day-use, because at peak winter season there is no need for out of Valley visitor parking in wintertime.’ This is maladroit planning at its worst. The NPS administrators either won’t look for or can’t see the simple ways to fix the basic parking problems in Yosemite Valley." (Individual, Mountain View, CA - #6140)

Response: To allow the restoration of highly valued resources, the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS calls for limited parking in Yosemite Valley.

Parking levels within the Valley would be designed to accommodate the smaller visitation levels experienced from November through March. Shuttles from out-of-Valley parking sites to the Valley would not need to operate from November through March when parking in Yosemite Valley would be sufficient to serve day visitors. Out-of-Valley shuttle service would start in April, beginning with the weekends. As visitation increased and the demand for parking rose, out-of-Valley parking lots would meet this demand and shuttle service would be expanded, reaching a maximum level on weekends during the summer. The combination of some in-Valley parking, out-of-Valley parking, and shuttle service would be designed to meet the summer parking demand.

Generally, the peak visitation season for Yosemite National Park occurs from mid-June through Labor Day weekend. April, May, September, and October comprise the "shoulder" season, with intermediate levels of visitor use. Visitation is lowest from November through March.

235. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should assign vehicles to specific parking lots during peak times and seasons.

"Here is how I see a better plan; retain about 5 or 6 day parking lots with about 1500 spaces. Some can be in the west end of the Valley. During all busy times and peak seasons, each day use car would be assigned to a certain parking lot so they can’t drive around the Valley. The Park can figure out how to monitor the lots to tell when they are filled." (Individual, San Diego, CA - #3479)

Response: The Preferred Alternative includes a traveler information and traffic management system that would manage the number of vehicles in Yosemite Valley so as not to exceed the capacity of parking areas and roads. On days when visitor use is equal to or less than the capacity of the parking areas and roads, vehicles would be directed to parking areas in the Valley. When visitor use exceeds the capacity of facilities in activity areas in the park, primarily during the peak season months, the traveler information and traffic management system would use a variety of tools to guide people to available parking. Though many ideas exist for these tools (assigning spaces, reservations, etc.) final decisions will be made in subsequent planning efforts. The Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS calls for parking to be consolidated into one lot in Yosemite Valley to achieve restoration and visitor experience goals that cannot be achieved through dispersed parking (see Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences).

582. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should retain dispersed parking in Yosemite Valley.

"Blanket restriction on parking should not be necessary. We feel that even within the East Valley there is no need to completely eliminate 1600 parking spaces as discussed in the Draft Plan. Parking restrictions should be implemented on a case-by-case basis if (after implementation of plans to reduce auto presence in the East Valley) there are still locations with objectionable concentrations of automobiles. The Draft Plan recognizes that for the foreseeable future there will be automobile presence in the East Valley. With this in mind, we feel it is inefficient to eliminate the scattered parking while recreating parking in a central location." (Recreational Organization, No Address - #3800)

Response: Small parking lots are less visually intrusive than larger parking lots, but they can cause increases in resource damage. Multiple scattered small parking areas are less efficient than larger, less numerous parking lots and as a result require more total parking spaces. Scattered parking areas spread air and other pollutants from autos (e.g.,fluid leaks) over a larger area; drivers spend more time and travel longer distances searching for parking; visitors tend to drive from location to location, rather than parking their vehicles in one location and walking or traveling by shuttle to sites in the Valley; more roads are needed to connect small parking lots to one another.

The Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS calls for day-visitor parking in the Valley to be consolidated into a single parking lot to allow the restoration of highly valued resources.

228. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should retain roadside parking in Yosemite Valley.

"While we recognize that there have been problems with East Valley parking overflowing the lots and spreading willy-nilly along the roads (cf. the plan on page 3-96) this should not be a problem when enough day-visit vehicles are diverted. And while it may be necessary to carefully prescribe parking at selected East Valley locations (e.g., Lower Yosemite Falls, Yosemite Village, etc.) it would be counterproductive to limit roadside parking in general–elimination of these parking spaces would actually worsen congestion and parking problems in the East Valley since vehicles which are in the Valley but not destined for intensively used areas would be forced to use prescribed lots in the East Valley." (Recreational Organization, No Address - #3800)

"Little or no justification is provided in the plan for the elimination of roadside parking in the Valley. The roads are already there, the turnouts and shoulders are already there, and little if any environmental impact would occur if they are used. The plan assumes in a general way that there is a correlation between the number of vehicles in the valley and the amount of traffic congestion in problem areas such as Curry Village and Yosemite Village. But a climber who parks at the roadside and is on the rocks all day does not add to the traffic problems experienced at the Villages." (Recreational Organization, San Marcos, CA - #4584)

"Leave the parking pull outs now existing west of Yosemite Lodge alone. Off-season visitors should not have to walk 5 miles to view some scene, especially since the parking already exists. It will be hard to ‘continue to enjoy the diverse recreational and social experiences currently available’ if the access to these experiences becomes limited due to the loss of road systems, pull-out parking areas, picnic areas, etc. As it is now, when we drive in, we always stop at several of the pull-outs along the road from Bridalveil Falls until we finally get to Curry Village. Each of these pull-outs gives a unique view of the different features of the Valley–Ribbon Falls, Sentinel Falls, Yosemite Falls, El Capitan (and the climbers), etc., plus different flora and fauna–all vying for attention, contemplation, and photographs. If these pull-outs are eliminated and/or bypassed by your bus system, you will certainly not be enhancing the people’s enjoyment of the Valley." (Individual, Oakhurst, CA - #3379)

FOR CLIMBERS

"It appears under the Preferred Alternative 2 that there will be no roadside parking for climbing. But even if shuttle service is expanded, this will make it difficult or impossible to climb many routes in Yosemite. Often I have left Camp 4 at 4 or 5 in the morning, parked my car at the base of Middle Cathedral, or El Cap, and begun climbing. I doubt there will be shuttles running often at 4 a.m., and since many of these climbs need an early start in order to finish in daylight, it will effectively mean I cannot climb those routes. Of course, I could begin them later, but that might mean I’d be unable to finish by dark, which would make the climb more dangerous, and might even result in more rescues. Without the ability to park at the base of climbs, many long climbs in the Park will become impossible without greatly increasing the risk of becoming stranded by dark." (Individual, Santa Cruz, CA - #1642)

Response: Currently, many roadside parking locations throughout the Valley degrade natural resources, especially those near meadows. In other areas the presence of vehicles along scenic viewpoints, in open space, and in discovery areas detract from the visitor experience. There are other areas where roadside parking contributes to traffic congestion and presents safety hazards. There are areas in the Valley where roadside parking may be appropriate, and these roadside parking areas, such as Southside Drive in the Bridalveil Fall area, will be retained for the most part. The National Park Service will retain other turnout areas as necessary for safety reasons or to provide access to historic viewpoints. To accomplish the goals of the Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, long-term roadside parking would be discouraged or prohibited and replaced with improved Valley-wide shuttle access.

Additionally, National Park Staff will study the safest and most convenient way to improve access to major Valley attractions for all visitors. Special provisions may be made for people with particular destinations and activities who are unable to use the shuttle bus system. Special provisions could include allowing people to travel in private vehicles and park at some destinations, or special shuttle trips to meet the unique schedule needs of climbers and other visitors.

548. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should retain parking at Curry Orchard.

"Historic Curry Orchard: Retain the Parking . . ." (Individual, Seattle, WA - #1354)

Response: During development of the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, many considerations were used to determine suitable locations for parking, including highly valued resources, cultural landscape, rockfalls, floodplains, the River Protection Overlay, visitor experience, and traffic circulation.

In the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, Alternatives 1 and 5 included day-visitor parking at Curry Orchard. However, as described in Vol. IA, Chapter 2 of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, day-visitor parking is not provided at Curry Orchard in any of the action alternatives due to the zoning prescribed in the Merced River Plan/FEIS. Curry Orchard is zoned as 3B Visitor Base and Lodging, which does not allow for day-visitor parking.

214. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require the construction of parking facilities in Yosemite Valley.

CAMP 6

"Those cars that do park for the day inside the Valley should be parked at old Camp Six. This former campground was destroyed by the flood of 1997. The parking lot there should be temporary, to be used only until transit facilities are in place to accommodate all day-use visitors." (Individual, Inkster, MI - #425)

ICE RINK AREA

"In the space left by the removal of the rafting concession headquarters (at the ice rink), I would like to see a large bus parking lot for day tour busses, overnight tour buses, and perhaps even NPS shuttle buses that are parked for the night along with a light bus maintenance facility." (Individual, Columbia, CA - #7149)

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STABLE

"By removing the NPS stable from its current site, more day-use parking for private vehicles could be available in the Yosemite Village area and thus also help to avoid the use of Camp 6." (Individual, Columbia, CA - #7149)

CAMP CURRY

"Portions of Alternative 5 might also be worth keeping alive. Parking near Camp Curry would make it convenient for tent campers, most of whom arrive late in the day, to have their car near their camp site." (Individual, San Francisco, CA - #131)

CAMP 7 AND CAMP 15

"Why don’t you use Camp 7 and Camp 15 for parking for the two months or three months of the year instead of having people being bused in for 15 or 20 miles or more, it’s ridiculous." (Public Hearing, San Francisco, CA - #20019)

LOWER RIVER CAMPGROUND

"The current practice of using the Curry Village parking lot as the primary day-use parking lot has created a parking lot that is too crowded and congested, not only with cars, and shuttle buses, but also with pedestrians. A simple resolution to this dilemma is to take all the day-use parking areas for the entire Valley, and place them into the Lower River Campground, which is already in place, level and under tree cover so as not to be visible from Glacier Point. This is a natural location as it is within walking distance to almost all of the east Valley areas of interest, and would not require the creation of a new day-use parking lot at either Taft Toe or Pohono Quarry. Restrooms are already on site." (Individual, American Canyon, CA - #907)

TRAILHEADS

"There is not enough parking for wilderness backpacking or day-use hiking to Nevada Falls, Half Dome, etc. There will not be shuttle service early enough in the day for those who wish to get a very early start on their hikes." (Individual, Pacific Grove, CA - #156)

Response: During the development of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS the suitability of numerous locations for parking and transportation-related facilities was evaluated. There are a limited number of areas available for development in Yosemite Valley out of the rockfall and highly valued resource zones. These limited areas were also considered for other services and operational needs such as lodging, camping, and maintenance areas. The Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS offers a balance of development types and recreational areas in the most suitable locations.

The Preferred Alternative proposes to construct a day-visitor parking area in the Yosemite Village area, including a portion of the Camp 6 area. The plan also includes parking for day visitors at three new out-of-Valley parking areas on the approach routes to the Valley. Day-visitor parking near Yosemite Village is proposed because it would result in the development of fewer facilities in undisturbed areas. It would also reduce the impacts associated with introducing intensive visitor use in relatively lightly visited areas and would bring visitor parking in the Valley within walking distance of more popular destinations.

The number of Valley parking spaces provided in the plan was determined through an analysis of parking needs in each month of the year and was designed to meet the demand for day-visitor parking from November through March. Increased parking demand from April to October would be met through the out-of-Valley facilities and shuttle service. Underground and multi-level parking structures were considered for the Valley but were not proposed due to high costs and the natural resource constraints of the area.

564. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require the construction of transfer facilities in Yosemite Valley.

TAFT TOE

"I favor Taft Toe for main all season day-use parking. . . When [Yosemite Village lots] get full we stop allowing entrance to east Valley and use Taft Toe and only then, when very full and only on big days and summer jam ups do we revert to out-of-Valley parking." (Individual, La Verne, CA - #324)

"Recommendation: That the National Park Service consider adding to Alternative 3 a variation that includes an attractive, combined parking garage, visitor center, and year-round service station at Taft Toe instead of the parking lot that is now contemplated. A semicircular design is envisioned, with 3 to 5 stories nestled near or into the hillside, partially shielded by trees, with picture windows or an open-air porch in the front of the visitor center looking out on a great view of El Capitan." (Individual, Berkeley, CA - #3480)

YOSEMITE VILLAGE

"The need for a centrally located transit hub located at the visitor center as displayed in Alternative 2, we strongly support. We believe that by locating the transit hub at the center of visitor activity, the needs of Park visitors will be better met than what currently exists. The associated day-use parking facility located nearby will also meet the needs of visitors both during the busy summer months as well as in the off-season." (Merced County Board of Supervisors, Merced, CA - #20114)

BRIDALVEIL FALLS

"The placement of a transit center at Bridalveil had no good reason for elimination. The claim that future fire or beetle infestation would make it visible is lame. This is true for almost any facility in the West end. It could be screened from view if carefully sited and screening could be augmented by planting more native trees." (Individual, North Fork, CA - #6377)

"One alternative to provide some day visitor parking in the Bridalveil Fall area was dismissed because of its high potential to affect visual quality and the cultural landscape from two significant vantage points–Tunnel View and Valley View, due to a catastrophic event (e.g., wildfire). An easy solution to this potential visual problem would be to put up a thick net such as those used alongside golf driving ranges and tennis courts. The net would be dark green to blend in with the background. New trees can be planted and will grow high enough in 15 years that the net can be removed." (Individual, San Diego, CA - #3479)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS calls for the location of a transfer facility to allow visitors convenient access to the park’s primary visitor center for information and orientation, and to shuttle services and popular destinations within walking distance in Yosemite Valley. The facility would be located in an area zoned for this type of activity in the Merced River Plan/FEIS.

Its proposed location in Yosemite Village places the transfer facility in an area with existing intensive visitor use and a concentration of visitor support facilities. By concentrating transportation in an appropriate location, the potential impacts of buses and private vehicles can be significantly reduced elsewhere in the Valley. The level of vehicle activity in the vicinity of the transfer facility would be similar to or lower than that at the existing day-visitor parking areas in the Valley. Greater concentrations of pedestrians would occur at the transfer facility, but pedestrian facilities would be designed to accommodate the expected number of people while maintaining less crowded conditions.

By reducing vehicle traffic in other visitor-use areas, this facility would increase the opportunity for quiet contemplation and would enhance the ability of visitors to appreciate the natural resource values of the Valley. The proposed transfer facility locations at Yosemite Village would not be visible from Tunnel View.

683. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should increase parking in Yosemite Valley for disabled visitors.

"I encourage you to consider assigning a large proportion of parking spaces to disabled parking, since it is harder for people with disabilities to use the mass transit options. Clearly you can monitor the demand for parking spaces among the disabled community and assign parking appropriately." (Individual, Brisbane, CA - #6846)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes to reduce vehicle traffic in the Valley to allow visitors a more nature-oriented experience, one that is less affected by the presence of motorized vehicles. Special provisions, however, may be made for people with disabilities who are unable to use the shuttle bus system in the Valley. Special provisions could include allowing people with disabilities to use private vehicles to access some destinations (similar to the current management of the Happy Isles Loop and Mirror Lake Road) or making special vehicles available for people with disabilities.

131. Public Concern: The National Park Service should build underground parking facilities in Yosemite Valley.

"I do want one- or two-story underground parking facilities. One under the ‘orchard’ at Camp Curry. One under the existing parking lot adjacent to Yosemite Village market, and one somewhere near the old gas station location. Once these are built they require little maintenance, unlike your bus system. Parking fees can be per hour or per day. There will be less bear damage to cars with food left inside. The ground level or ‘roof’ can be planted in native or garden plants with picnic areas. . . I envision a parking structure similar to Pershing Square parking garage in downtown Los Angeles." (Individual, El Dorado, CA - #243)

Response: Underground parking facilities are very expensive to construct. The construction of such facilities would have a significant impact on groundwater movement, and create significant volumes of soil that would require disposal. In addition, should the need for parking be reduced due to future increased use of regional transit to the Valley, surface parking would be much easier to remove. For these reasons, underground parking facilities were not considered in the Draft or Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

327. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should provide for high-density valet parking in Yosemite Valley.

"Day use parking at Yosemite Village or Taft toe should be San Francisco valet-style (super dense) with people leaving their keys. If super dense valet parking at Yosemite Village could eliminate the need for out-of-valley shuttles, any cost would pale compared to the cost of a bus system. If visitors are asked, valet-style parking will always be chosen over out-of-Valley parking." (Individual, Fresno, CA - #20511)

Response: The operation of parking facilities is beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Operational issues such as how access to parking facilities are managed will be addressed during the planning of the travel information and traffic management system which will be developed with extensive public input following completion of the Yosemite Valley Plan.

625. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should include a parking space reservation system that requires visitors to leave cars parked during their visit.

"Assign incoming visitors to a definite parking spot either from previous reservation, or from a present park vacancy. At the ‘staging area’ outside the Valley proper, each visitor will receive a windshield sticker showing boldly his assigned site and number showing the date of arrival and the definite date of his departure and literature advising them that once in their assigned space their vehicle cannot be moved from there until date of departure and leaving the Valley--under penalty of a $500 fine. From time of arrival they must use public transportation, hike, bike, horseback riding, etc., enjoying the beauty of the Valley and their surroundings. This plan would enhance the visitors visit. He would be able to drive to his assigned space, unload his family, food, clothing and equipment and take off to explore with a sense of freedom and enjoyment. Visitors without a space or reservation would have to go on a list for a vacancy, marking time outside of the Valley in a hotel, motel or campground." (Individual, Yosemite National Park, CA - #255)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS action alternatives include the implementation of a traveler information and traffic management system. This system could use reservations as part of a strategy to equitably allocate access to areas in Yosemite National Park when the demand for visitor use is higher than the capacity of visitor facilities or park resources. However, no decision has been reached regarding the use of reservations or other means of allocating access. The traveler information and traffic management system would be designed to encourage visitors to remain parked in the designated parking area until they left the Valley. The traveler information and traffic management system would be implemented after a planning and environmental compliance process that would include extensive public involvement.

31. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should limit parking in Yosemite Valley.

"All those parking in the Yosemite Valley are a joke: They destroy [the] nature people are coming to experience. . . Looking down from the road leading up into the mountains, the Valley looked like any parking place in front of any parking place in front of any super-mall: cars everywhere, the whole valley filled with them." (Individual, Groebenzell, Germany - #30022)

"If the powers-that-be in Yosemite have to eliminate parking in the Valley, how about eliminating the parking spaces at the large hotels? Let these hotel guests ride the transit buses into the Valley. Let’s see if the guests at the fancy hotels in Yosemite Valley are keen for their new transit experience." (Individual, San Carlos, CA - #99)

"The consolidation and eventual elimination of in-Valley parking is crucial to the Park Service’s efforts to reduce the air pollution, water pollution, noise, automobile accidents, pedestrian accidents, and severe traffic congestion caused by too many vehicles in the Valley." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #4594)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS calls for limited parking in Yosemite Valley. The number of parking spaces would be reduced and parking would be located to allow the restoration of highly valued resources to occur in currently impacted areas. Visitors traveling to the Valley in private vehicles would be directed to parking areas at their overnight accommodations or at the designated day-visitor parking area. Once visitors park, they would travel by shuttle or by nonmotorized means to other Valley destinations. No parking would be provided at individual destinations to discourage travel in the Valley by private vehicles.

Providing parking outside the Valley for overnight visitors was considered but dismissed due to the high cost and logistical complexity of transporting baggage and camping supplies for overnight visitors. Also, it was assumed that overnight visitors, especially campers, would be reluctant to leave their vehicles parked in a remote location. Vehicles act as supplemental storage areas for overnight visitors and, in the case of recreational vehicles, the private vehicle provides overnight sleeping and cooking facilities. Furthermore, providing parking in remote sites for overnight visitors would require 24-hour security services at several remote locations, which would be expensive and labor intensive. Vehicle trips of overnight visitors represent a proportionally small amount of the traffic in the valley. The expense and visitor impacts of eliminating these vehicle trips were judged to be too great to justify the related benefits.

Day visitors who do not park in the Valley would arrive by shuttle bus from out-of-Valley parking areas approximately a half-hour from the Valley.

684. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should prohibit the construction of new permanent parking facilities in Yosemite Valley.

"Prohibit construction of any new permanent parking lots in the Valley." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #4594)

Response: At this time there is not a feasible alternative to providing visitor access to Yosemite National Park and to accomplishing the five goals of the General Management Plan without the construction of additional parking facilities. The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS calls for day-visitor parking in Yosemite Valley to be consolidated into a single parking lot to allow the restoration of highly valued resources. The development of this single parking lot would be part of the design changes to the Yosemite Village area, one of the most highly visited areas in the Valley. In the Preferred Alternative, this parking lot would be in a similar location to what exists today at Yosemite Village. Additional parking lots would not be constructed in the Valley. Visitor facilities in the Village would be placed adjacent to visitor parking and shuttle operations so that it is not necessary for pedestrians to cross Yosemite Village Drive. Yosemite Village Drive would be rerouted around the perimeter of the Village so as to avoid potential conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles.

130. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should restrict parking to recognized parking areas in Yosemite National Park.

"How can you believe that removing people and restricting travel will cure the Park’s problems? By restricting the parking to only recognized parking areas you can restrict both the overcrowding problem and the traffic problem. It does, however, require more oversight to work correctly: (1) Tow cars parked in inappropriate areas; (2) Restrict access by trail permits and enforce their use (no permit, no hike); (3) Restrict vehicular traffic, bikes included, to only those areas where this kind of traffic is allowed; (4) Enforce the laws and regulations currently on the books. Most of the current management problems are due to the Park Service being reluctant to use items 1 to 4 above." (Individual, No Address - #415)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes to restrict visitor parking and traffic to designated areas. Consolidating day-visitor parking into a single in-Valley parking lot with three out-of-Valley parking areas would enable the National Park Service to better manage and monitor parking. Increased management would be used to prevent unauthorized vehicle parking and travel in unauthorized areas. Simply enforcing existing regulations would not solve the problem of having inadequate facilities for the number of people visiting the Valley. Roadside parking and parking in nonendorsed areas occurs because the parking demand is greater than the supply. The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes to provide shuttle bus service from designated parking locations outside the Valley as an alternative means of access. By providing the shuttle service and controlling the number of vehicles that enter the Valley, parking in areas other than designated lots would be reduced.

158. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should not propose the construction of parking facilities in undeveloped areas of Yosemite Valley.

"I cannot understand why established parking areas within the Valley should be ripped up and restored to natural conditions while relatively pristine areas elsewhere in the Valley are destroyed for parking. . . Far better than one 550-site lot at Camp 6 would be to retain the 50 Yosemite Falls sites and the 219 day-visitor Yosemite Lodge sites, and to expand and reconfigure the existing Village Store lot from 130 sites to 281 sites." (Individual, Oberlin, OH - #580)

Response: The 550-space parking area proposed in the Yosemite Village area in the Preferred Alternative would be located on land that is largely already disturbed. Final designs have not been prepared for the parking area; however, it could use land now occupied by the Village Store lot or land that is currently used for day-visitor parking in the Camp 6 area. The final design and location of parking would be selected to maximize the restoration of highly valued resources, to give the best opportunity for the natural processes of the Valley to prevail, and to provide convenient access for visitors in a natural setting that emphasizes the scenic and other natural values of Yosemite Valley.

A single parking area is proposed, rather than multiple smaller lots, because it would be easier to direct visitors to such a lot and because all day visitors would be able to walk from the parking area to the Visitor Center. Locating day-visitor parking in the Yosemite Falls area and at Yosemite Lodge would introduce day-visitor traffic into an area that otherwise would be relatively free of the influence of high volumes of traffic. By consolidating parking in one location, overall traffic volume in the Valley would be reduced by eliminating cars traveling from one lot to another searching for a place to park. Also, fewer parking spaces would be needed because a single lot would be more efficient than scattered parking.

173. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should emphasize the use of small, unobtrusive parking lots throughout Yosemite Valley.

"Turning huge meadows into asphalt parking lots, as we did near Camp Curry so that we could force people to abandon their cars and take the bus to Happy Isles, is far more ruinous of the environment than small parking lots nestled among the trees. We still have smaller lots at places like Bridalveil and we used to have them at Happy Isles, Indian Caves and Mirror Lake. We need fewer big open parking areas and more secluded small ones." (Individual, Pacific Palisades, CA - #17)

"I think it may be possible to build some scattered small parking lots at places like Taft Toe or near El Cap (existing parking) that have minimal impact. It may be useful to have some parking outside the east end of the Valley, if day parking is cut way back in the east end. Another advantage is that this would provide somewhere in the west end of the Valley to park, at times when the shuttle won’t run, possibly winter, rather than have to walk from the parking at the Village." (Individual, Arroyo Grande, CA - #3555)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS calls for day-visitor parking in the Valley to be consolidated into a single parking lot.

The advantages of locating parking for day visitors in a single lot were considered in developing the action alternatives for the Yosemite Valley Plan (see Vol. IA, Chapter 2). A given number of parking spaces in scattered parking lots would require more development area than the same number of spaces in a single lot. The space required for circulation, buffers from adjacent uses, drainage, and access to and from the lot is minimized with a single parking lot. Providing parking in one location also reduces the vehicle traffic associated with visitor travel to and from parking, including the potential need to travel among scattered locations in search of empty spaces.

These advantages were considered more important than the advantages of potentially less visibility and, for some visitors, the ability to park closer to Valley destinations with scattered parking. As a result, the action alternatives provide parking for day visitors in a single lot that can be managed to maximize access for day visitors.

32. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should prohibit the construction of transfer facilities in Yosemite Valley.

"I am against a huge super parking structure in Yosemite Valley. Tunnel View should remain as is for future generations to enjoy." (Individual, No Address - #99)

TAFT TOE

"We are opposed to Alternatives 3 and 4 because of the proposed Parking at Taft Toe." (Individual, Santa Barbara, CA - #109)

"[The Taft Toe development] expands the footprint of developed area in Yosemite Valley by about 2.1 miles in a westerly direction, into previously and historically undeveloped areas. Would degrade the magnificent and sweeping views of the Valley floor . . . from elevated positions and from positions on or along the rim, which would be preserved for future generations of Park visitors. Would also bring new development very close to areas along the south bank of the Merced River in the vicinity of El Capitan View, and the sandy riverbank area east of there for some distance, the locale of some of the finest scenic views of El Capitan and the River. This development should not take place." (Individual, Los Angeles, CA - #470)

YOSEMITE VILLAGE

"A central transit facility should not be constructed in Yosemite Village. This would result in a large concentration of people in a small area. The indicated transport interval was a bus arriving or departing every 39 to 45 seconds. The amount of noise, excitement, hubub, and commotion here would far exceed anything known before. This is Yosemite Village. It is not Grand Central Station, nor should the ambience of one be created here. Visitors do not come to Yosemite for that type of experience. Conditions should remain quiet and peaceful, consistent with the magnificence of the natural surroundings." (Individual, Los Angeles, CA - #470)

A transfer facility is required to afford visitors convenient access to shuttle services and walking routes within Yosemite Valley. The facility would be located in an area zoned for this type of activity in the Merced River Plan/FEIS.

The Preferred Alternative places the transfer facility in Yosemite Village, an area with existing intensive visitor use and a concentration of visitor support facilities. By concentrating transportation in an appropriate location, the potential impacts of buses and private vehicles can be significantly reduced elsewhere in the Valley. The level of vehicle activity in the vicinity of the transfer facility would be similar to or lower than that at the existing day-visitor parking areas in the Valley. Greater concentrations of pedestrians would occur at the transfer facility, but pedestrian facilities would be designed to accommodate the expected number of people while maintaining uncrowded conditions.

By reducing vehicle traffic in other visitor-use areas, this facility would increase the opportunity for quiet contemplation and would enhance the ability of visitors to appreciate the natural resource values of the Valley. The proposed transfer facility location at Yosemite Village is not visible from Tunnel View.

709. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require the removal of parking at Camp 6.

"Parking at Camp 6 should be removed and that area restored to natural conditions. It might make a good picnic area." (Individual, Modesto, CA - #3538)

"To eliminate the parking lot use of Camp 6 is desirable because I believe that it is important to have a continuous connection of wetlands between the east end of Yosemite Valley to Bridalveil Meadow because this would enhance the natural processes between the main Merced River channel, riparian borders, and meadows and promote healthy wetlands in the area and provide a corridor of wildlife through the length of the Valley. I believe this is important enough to justify expanding day-use parking in the Yosemite Village area other than Camp 6 by any means possible." (Individual, Columbia, CA - #7149)

Response: During development of the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, many considerations were used to determine suitable locations for parking, including highly valued resources, cultural landscapes, rockfalls, floodplains, the River Protection Overlay, visitor experience, and traffic circulation.

The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes to reduce the number of parking spaces in Yosemite Valley for day visitors and to locate day-visitor parking in a single parking lot. This lot would be located in what is now Yosemite Village and Camp 6. However, parking at Camp 6 would be reconfigured and portions of the area restored, including establishing a 150-foot River Protection Overlay adjacent to the Merced River. The River Protection Overlay would create a continuous riparian corridor through Yosemite Valley (see Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences).

The development of this single parking lot would be a component of the development plans for the Yosemite Village area, one of the most highly visited areas in the Valley. Concept development plans place visitor facilities in this area adjacent to visitor parking and shuttle operations so that it would not be necessary for pedestrians to cross Yosemite Village Drive. Yosemite Village Drive would be rerouted around the perimeter of the Village (potentially into a portion of Camp 6) so as to avoid potential pedestrian conflicts. Site design and specific plans for the area are beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan and will be addressed in subsequent planning processes.

515. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should include criteria for eliminating parking at Camp 6.

"The Record of Decision must include criteria for ending the use of Camp 6 for day-use parking. The NPS must explain what circumstances will finally trigger the end of day-use parking in the Valley and fulfill the GMP’s ultimate goal of removing all private vehicles from Yosemite. Our organizations believe the NPS could commit to closing Camp 6 (and restoring the area) as soon as the satellite parking lots are in use and YARTS is operating at full capacity, such that out-of-Valley parking can fully accommodate all day-use visitors." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #4594)

Response: Establishing additional criteria to guide future development or restoration projects, such as elimination of parking at Camp 6, is beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. At this time, there is not a feasible alternative to providing visitor access to Yosemite National Park without the presence of some parking in Yosemite Valley (see Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Alternatives Considered but Dismissed).

During development of the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the criteria used to determine the suitable locations for parking included highly valued resources, cultural landscape, rockfall, floodplains, River Protection Overlay, visitor experience, and traffic circulation. In the future, the National Park Service would continue to refine visitor use levels and land management zoning in the Valley. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS identifies a process for identifying future sociological, ecological, and cultural preservation conditions (see Chapter 2, Alternatives, Actions Common to All Action Alternatives).

4.13.5.c ~ Out-of-Valley Parking

As with Yosemite Valley parking, respondents commenting on out-of-Valley parking suggest a number of sites where facilities either should or should not be built and request several points of clarification in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS regarding such sites. Respondents request satellite parking facilities at various locations:

Badger Pass
Chinquapin Junction
Henness Ridge
Yosemite West
Wawona
El Portal
Hazel Green

Hazel Green, in particular, is the subject of extensive comment. A number of individuals argue that Hazel Green is a superior site to South Landing based on several factors: lower vehicle emissions resulting from reduced travel time for visitors entering the park from the west, mutually beneficial use by both the National Park Service and the University of California, Merced, Sierra Research Institute, and potential great grey owl conflicts at the Preferred Alternative’s South Landing site. But, according to one conservation organization, wherever parking facilities are proposed, "they should be planned, purchased, and completed within a year of the ROD [record of decision]."

Proposals to limit parking vary from numerical limitations to complete prohibitions on developing or expanding parking facilities in areas such as Hazel Green, Foresta, Oakhurst, South Landing, Inspiration Point, and Badger Pass. More often than not, respondents exhort the National Park Service to avoid developing these sites because such projects would disturb pristine land. This, according to one individual, is contrary to the 1916 Organic Act "mandating the unimpaired preservation of this land, the scenery, natural objects, and wildlife contained therein for all time." Three additional reasons respondents offer for not developing out-of-Valley sites include the National Park Service’s alleged lack of jurisdiction in areas outside of Yosemite, the potential for rush hour traffic into the Valley caused by those not opting to ride a bus, and the detrimental effect on visitor experience.

Respondents request that the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS do a better job of addressing the scope and impact of parking facilities at both Hazel Green and in El Portal. In the case of Hazel Green, one person questions the appropriateness of approving a parking lot before the completion of an environmental impact study. Regarding El Portal, respondents seek clarification of the cost, design, operation, and recreational vehicle use of any proposed parking facility.

91. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require the construction of parking facilities outside of Yosemite Valley.

"Many years ago I commented on the original Yosemite Valley Plan, and supported the alternative that required all day visitors to park outside of the Valley. I still think that this is the best plan, and would be happy to park outside of the Valley myself when making a day visit. In fact, I would prefer it because I would then not have to deal with finding a parking place, particularly with snow on the ground. Therefore I support Alternative 2." (Individual, Danville, CA - #371)

"Day-use vehicles should be parked in suitable parking structures outside of the Valley and the visitors shuttled by bus or tram into the Valley. The Transportation service should be improved and a nominal fee charged to cover increased costs." (Individual, La Crescenta, CA - #515)

"Establish out-of-Valley reception areas with well designed parking areas, bus service to the Valley, visitor centers, retail sales, and food service at Badger Pass, South Landing, and El Portal." (Individual, Oberlin, OH - #580)

BADGER PASS

"I especially like use of Badger Pass as an out-of-Valley parking location." (Individual, Pacific Grove, CA - #156)

"Since out-of-Valley parking seems to be really necessary, I think it should all be in El Portal because El Portal will be connected to the Valley by the best, newest, and shortest road. Any road accidents involving large numbers of bus passengers for example would be limited to the El Portal Road and emergency services would be available sooner." (Individual, Columbia, CA - #7149)

CHINQUAPIN JUNCTION

"The use of Badger Pass for parking for visitors coming from the south would seem to add 45 minutes (possibly an hour) to get to the Valley. Why not have parking in the Chinquapin Junction vicinity (old gas station, restroom, ranger property)?" (Individual, Del Mar, CA - #64)

HENNESS RIDGE

"An expanded Henness Ridge parking area would be superior to Badger Pass if out-of-Valley parking is required for the south entrance route, because Badger Pass is quite a ways out of the way." (Individual, Oakhurst, CA - #3379)

YOSEMITE WEST

"I believe that you have overlooked the value of the areas known as Yosemite West in the Draft of the Valley Implementation Plan, and, I would like once again to offer the values of this strategically located, privately owned, and undeveloped 752 acres of land for your consideration before your final acceptance of the Yosemite Valley Plan. We have the potential to reduce day-use parking and traffic congestion in the Valley by providing another, perhaps more convenient, economical, and desirable parking site for day use visitors, who could then be bused to the various points of interest form this centrally located site." (Individual, San Jose, CA - #5604)

WAWONA

"Why isn’t Wawona given consideration for out-of-Valley parking? Wawona seems ideal because a substantial infrastructure already exists, including gas station, grocery, Park offices, etc. Wawona seems preferable to Badger as time and energy lost in the Chinquapin to Badger merry-go-round, more than offsets the slightly increased time. The argument against Wawona might be that day use by 150 cars would be growth inducing; however, virtually all car parking at Badger would also stop at Wawona for groceries, gas, restrooms, and directions. In short, why wasn’t Wawona even considered for out-of-Valley parking?" (Individual, Monroe, OR - #404)

EL PORTAL

"If Park administrators feel compelled to accommodate 18,000 visitors, there should be one out-of-Valley lot in El Portal. Asking cars at Cascades Dam to drive to El Portal to get to the Valley is no more out of the way than asking cars at Chinquapin to drive to Badger Pass. In Oakhurst, cars could be directed to El Portal." (Individual, Fresno, CA - #20511)

HAZEL GREEN

"The County of Merced is supportive of the proposed staging area on Highway 120 at Hazel Green Meadow. This staging area will allow for visitors to park outside the congested Valley and ride a transit bus from this location which provides service both for east bound and west bound Park visitors. The placement of a staging area on this property also provides for the development of a research station for UC Merced in partnership with the National Park Service’s Sierra Studies Institute." (Merced County Board of Supervisors, Merced, CA - #20114)

"The Economic Development Corporation of Mariposa County endorses the Hazel Green project designed by Destination Villages. We request that you consider the Hazel Green staging area suggested in Alternative 4 in your final plan for the following reasons: It is essential to this region that UC Merced and Yosemite National Park cement their relationship during this development period for both entities. Co-locating a Yosemite staging area with the UC Merced Sierra Research Institute is a practical step in this direction. The developer for Hazel Green has offered facilities consistent with the plans of both organizations at no cost to either, a savings for state and federal taxpayers. Moving the parking and staging area from South Landing to Hazel Green will save emissions from vehicles coming from the west. It is true that cars from the east will have to drive farther to get to the staging area if their drivers wish to park and ride. However, snow eliminates vehicles coming from the east during a significant portion of the year, and, during summer, some riders from Lee Vining have the option of coming on YARTS buses directly to the Valley. It seems logical that cutting the number of vehicle emissions coming from the west takes priority over reducing emissions from the east." (Business, Mariposa, CA - #1797)

"Our studies indicate that we do not have a Great Grey Owl problem, but that one may exist at South Landing. The Draft Plan makes clear that parking facilities at South Landing will require significant further environmental impact studies, as well as substantial construction; this is not so at Hazel Green. We know that if the parking is changed to Hazel Green, it will happen; but if it stays at South Landing the environmental constraints may prohibit it. Placing the Parking on private rather than Park property just makes more sense. We believe that we are entitled to access from Hazel Green to Highway 120 in any event. And, finally, Highway 120 is already enlarged at the Hazel Green location." (Public Hearing, Fresno, CA - #20482)

Response: The Preferred alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS calls for parking for day visitors to be located along each of the approach routes to Yosemite Valley and in the Valley in designated locations (Badger Pass, El Portal, and Hazel Green or Foresta). Parking locations are identified for each approach route to the Valley to provide convenient parking for all day visitors. Visitors parking outside the Valley would be transported to the Valley on shuttle buses. Alternatives 4 and 5 include day-visitor parking at other candidate sites (Foresta and South Landing on Big Oak Flat Road; and Henness Ridge, near Yosemite West and the Chinquapin intersection on Wawona Road).

Candidate sites for out-of-Valley parking were identified by locating areas of adequate size to meet the expected parking demand. Sites with steep slopes, sites within designated Wilderness, and sites that were more than one mile from a major park road were not considered. Meadows and meadow edges were not considered to be appropriate sites because of potential wildlife impacts and loss of valuable natural resources. Wawona was not identified as a candidate site for parking for day visitors to Yosemite Valley because the existing parking areas are fully utilized by visitors to Wawona and users of the shuttle from Wawona to the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias. There was not adequate flat land available outside of meadows and other highly valued resources to accommodate the expected parking demand in Wawona. In addition, the long travel distance from Wawona to the Valley would make the shuttle fleet larger and more expensive to operate.

Trade-offs exist among the alternative locations identified in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS for parking areas along the Wawona Road and Big Oak Flat Road. Locations closer to the Valley offer the advantage of quicker travel times to the Valley and the need for a smaller fleet of shuttle buses. Some of the alternatives, like Badger Pass and Hazel Green, have the disadvantage of requiring some visitors to travel out of their way to reach the staging area. However, these alternatives have the advantage of requiring less development on previously undisturbed land and the opportunity for multiple uses, reducing the overall need for development in and near the park. All of the advantages and disadvantages of the alternative out-of-valley parking locations were considered in identifying the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

Providing all parking for day visitors to Yosemite Valley in locations outside the Valley was considered but dismissed in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Serving all day visitors with shuttles from remote locations would require a very large fleet of buses, large parking areas outside the Valley, and year-round operation of the shuttle bus system. The roads leading to the Valley from the north and the south traverse high elevations that are subject to heavy snows in the winter. Operating shuttle buses on these routes in the winter and keeping parking areas cleared of snow would be difficult and expensive. Weather conditions in the winter would make waiting for shuttle buses uncomfortable. The number of parking spaces provided in the Valley for day visitors is adequate from November through March, when the heaviest snows occur. Day visitors on a typically busy day would use the parking provided in the Valley for day visitors in the winter, along with out-of-Valley parking. As a result, a balance of access by shuttle buses and by private vehicles would be provided for day visitors in the peak season.

520. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require the National Park Service to implement out-of-Valley parking facility plans within one year of the Record of Decision.

"We believe satellite lots should be planned, purchased, and completed within a year after the ROD–not in Phase 3 of the implementation. We support satellite lots at Badger Pass, El Portal, and Hazel Green with a small lot, if necessary, at Crane Flat." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #4594)

Response: The sequencing plan (see Vol. II, Appendix M) outlines the sequence of actions that will occur over a period of years. Actions such as out-of-Valley parking do not stand alone as independent actions, but are linked to several supporting actions to reach a fully functional out-of-Valley transit system. The associated support projects include establishing an in-Valley drop-off system, purchasing buses, establishing maintenance facilities for buses, and hiring and constructing housing for bus drivers. The projects will be sequenced according to the physical and operational links between developing replacement facilities outside Yosemite Valley, relocating functions, and rehabilitating or removing structures. (See Appendix M for more information.)

614. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should limit parking outside of Yosemite Valley.

"Provide no more than 600 parking places outside the Valley." (Individual, Oakhurst, CA - #129)

Response: To provide visitor access to Yosemite National Park and to accomplish the five goals of the General Management Plan it would be necessary to construct additional parking facilities so that areas with highly valued resources could be restored. Since the Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes to reduce the number of day-visitor parking spaces in Yosemite Valley, it is necessary to replace these parking spaces with parking in other locations. Providing only 600 parking spaces outside of Yosemite Valley is insufficient to provide parking accommodations to meet the visitor use levels projected in the General Management Plan. During the period from November through March, parking spaces in the Valley are expected to be adequate to meet the demand of day visitors. During these months, out-of-Valley parking lots would not be used. During the summer months of higher visitation, the park would operate out-of-Valley parking lots with shuttle service to the Valley. These out-of-Valley lots would be designed to accommodate the increased number of visitors during the peak summer season.

Out-of-Valley parking is limited by several factors: site specific limitations due to geography and ecological concerns, shuttle system capacity, identified need based on day use of Yosemite Valley, seasonal variations in visitation, and the effects on visitor experience.

56. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should prohibit the construction of parking facilities outside of Yosemite Valley.

"Action: Construct out-of-Valley parking areas. Result: Resource mismanagement. Prohibited destructive development of Park land. Would cut down forests, irreversibly destroy natural topography, and reduce natural habitat into parking to development that should remain in preservation. Contrary to the Act of Congress of October 1, 1890, designating this land as a forest reservation, to protect from injury all timber contained therein. Contrary to the Organic Act of August 25, 1916, mandating the unimpaired preservation of this land, the scenery, natural objects, and wildlife contained therein for all time. Day-visitors can be bused in from outside the Park by regional transportation." (Individual, Los Angeles, CA - #470)

"The remote parking is by definition out-of-Valley and forces the visitors to change mode of travel before they get even a glimpse of their destination. Thus much excitement and family fun (particularly for young visitors) is greatly reduced." (Individual, Phoenix, AZ - #2534)

"As long as there is parking for anyone in the Valley, adding parking lots outside the Valley will only make things worse. You are going to end up with a rush hour every morning because most people are not going to want to ride a bus into Yosemite Valley." (Individual, No Address - #188)

HAZEL GREEN

"I urge you not to allow development of parking at Hazel Green, as shown in Alternative 4." (Individual, Mariposa, CA - #68)

"Hazel Green is a bad place for parking. The trip to the Valley is longer than South Landing, and therefore more expensive, and more undisturbed area will be converted to pavement because of the need for a new road. It will promote yet another hotel complex on Yosemite’s border that further hinders wildlife movement." (Individual, Fresno, CA - #20511)

"Action: Out-of-Valley parking development at Hazel Green. Result: Private land outside of Yosemite National Park. Outside of the legal jurisdiction of the National Park Service." (Individual, Los Angeles, CA - #470)

FORESTA

"The proposed 520-space parking lot in Foresta. This facility would require at least 6 acres of presently undeveloped land. In addition, the cumulative impact of this lot, combined with the proposed other new uses in Foresta . . . would have a significant and devastating impact on the Foresta/Big Meadow environment, and would dramatically reduce the quality of the Park experience and life style in this fragile area. The use of 13 shuttle buses, making multiple trips a day, combined with over 500 vehicles coming to and from the parking lot each day, would result in a tremendously increased traffic flow and air pollution in the area with resulting negative impacts on the vegetation and wildlife in the area." (Individual, Santa Barbara, CA - #109)

OAKHURST

"I live in the Oakhurst area just outside the Park and do not want or need a city parking lot here, plus there is no place to put one that will not harm the scenic beauty and environment in the Oakhurst/Bass Lake/Ahwahnee area." (Individual, Oakhurst, CA - #2228)

SOUTH LANDING

"Action: Out-of-Valley parking development at South Landing. Result: Insufficient level terrain in this vicinity without extensive terracing and grading. Destructive development located close to the Merced Grove of Giant Sequoias, a highly valued and protected natural resource of Yosemite National Park. This area should not be disturbed." (Individual, Los Angeles, CA - #470)

Response: During the development of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS the National Park Service considered numerous locations throughout Yosemite Valley and along park roadways for the location of parking facilities. The 1980 General Management Plan called for reducing impacts of parking in Yosemite Valley, primarily through the removal of parking. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS recognizes that for the foreseeable future, some parking will continue to be needed. At this time there is not a feasible alternative to providing visitor access to Yosemite National Park without the construction of parking facilities. The National Park Service is working with the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System Authority (YARTS) to plan and develop a regional transportation system. It is through that planning process that a regional transit system and associated parking outside park boundaries would be created. In the region surrounding Yosemite, local communities control the process for deciding if, or where, parking, transit stops, or transit centers would be located. The four action alternatives presented in this Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS are independent of a regional transportation system (although several of the alternatives present various options for accommodating the needs of such a system). Options are presented for creating a transfer facility in Yosemite Valley that would accommodate visitors coming from gateway communities. The National Park Service does not control the investment of private funds or have the legislative authority to create and operate a transportation system outside the boundaries of the park. Due to the continued need to provide access to Yosemite Valley, parking facilities are being proposed that are within the jurisdiction of the National Park Service.

172. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should prohibit enlarging the parking area at Tunnel View (Inspiration Point).

"No more huge asphalt eyesores please, especially near the entrance to the Valley. The present parking area at Inspiration Point is very adequate for a first and last view of the Valley. Let’s not make it bigger." (Individual, Pacific Palisades, CA - #17)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does not propose any changes to the Tunnel View (Inspiration Point) area.

408. Public Concern: The National Park Service should prohibit enlarging the parking area at Badger Pass.

"I do not like having a bigger lot built at Badger Pass. Keep that Glacier Point Road for hikers and skiers. Put your bigger secondary parking lot at the Wawona area." (Individual, No Address - #1168)

"If we can use Badger Pass [as a parking area] without spending money on it, then it’s good. However, in the long run, it’s making people drive five miles farther. It’s going to cost a lot more because the buses have to go farther. It’s going to be hard to operate during May and June snowstorms." (Public Hearing, Fresno, CA - #20489)

Response: The Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes to use the existing parking lot at Badger Pass to support day visitors during the peak summer months. The expansion of this lot is not necessary based on the anticipated demand for visitor parking. The Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS calls for 410 day-visitor parking spaces to be located at Badger Pass. This is less than the 750 existing winter use parking spaces. It is anticipated that upgrades are necessary to Badger Pass to ensure facilities (such as the waste water system) are suitable for summer use.

491. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should address the scope and impacts of the proposed Hazel Green parking facility.

"What is the scope of the SNRI facility being offered by Hazel Green? How can you approve a parking lot at Hazel Green without an environmental impact study." (Individual, Merced, CA - #9329)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) proposes to reduce the number of parking spaces in Yosemite Valley for day visitors and to locate Valley parking in a single parking lot. Additional day-visitor parking would be located in out-of-Valley parking lots at Hazel Green,

El Portal, and Badger Pass. These areas would be designed to accommodate day-visitor parking and shuttle operations serving the Valley.

The Preferred Alternative includes both an access road into the Hazel Green site as well as the National Park Service parking lot. Impacts of these actions are addressed in Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences. The Sierra Nevada Research Institute¾ University of California, Merced facility and private development proposed at the site are outside the scope of this planning effort. Development on this private property would be subject to approval by Mariposa County. Impacts from these actions are addressed only under cumulative impacts analysis. Specific design plans for the out-of-Valley parking areas are beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan and will be part of subsequent site design plans.

374. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should provide additional detail regarding proposed development in El Portal.

"The location of El Portal parking spaces has not been identified within the Plan. In fact, much about the El Portal portion of the Plan is undefined. Greater specificity is needed in order to determine practical costs, design and operations." (Business, Yosemite National Park, CA - #3962)

Response: The National Park Service realizes that the El Portal Administrative Site is an intricate part of being able to implement many actions called for in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. A comprehensive, land based, development plan is needed for the El Portal community. However, a detailed development plan for the area is beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Consequently, the development plan would be prepared as a separate future planning effort. That planning effort would include alternatives for El Portal based on actions being called for in this plan such as relocations of National Park Service and concessioner headquarters/administrative functions, employee housing, out-of-Valley parking and employee commuter lots. An El Portal development concept plan would include appropriate environmental compliance as well as ample public participation.

627. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should clarify recreational vehicle parking opportunities in El Portal.

"We are told that limited parking lots will be placed at El Portal. Are there planned spaces for RV parking in these lots? If not, where do the ‘closed out of camping’ RVers park to ride in on the day buses." (Individual, Graham, NC - #113)

Response: The Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes to reduce the number of parking spaces in Yosemite Valley for day visitors and to locate Valley parking in a single parking lot. Additional day-visitor parking would be located in out-of-Valley parking lots, serviced by a Valley shuttle. At each of these parking locations, both in and out-of-Valley, a portion of the proposed spaces would be allocated for oversize vehicles including recreational vehicles. Specific plans to improve recreational vehicle facilities in El Portal are beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan, but will be addressed in subsequent planning efforts.

4.13.6 ~ Traffic Management

Although roads, trails, bridges, parking, and public transportation all affect traffic in Yosemite Valley, this section focuses on general traffic management concerns and aspects of traffic management that are less infrastructure-dependent than the above topics. The three groups of concerns found below address planning and analysis, improved signage, and enforcement. To ease congestion in the Valley, one public hearing speaker suggests that the National Park Service develop a specific transportation management system. For another respondent, sociological considerations–such as how visitor response to private vehicle restrictions will affect traffic patterns in Yosemite Valley–have not been adequately addressed in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. This person claims that such an analysis might better inform decisions regarding the location of out-of-Valley parking.

Road signage, some say, is one aspect of traffic management long overdue for improvement in Yosemite Valley. To remedy this deficiency, respondents propose such measures as improving the visibility of existing signs and establishing traffic lights. For some, this is a much more economical approach than building new roads or adding buses to the Valley. However, one person strongly believes traffic lights should not be used, though no rationale for this position is given.

Another facet of traffic management that respondents address is enforcement. Respondents urge the National Park Service to both enforce parking regulations in the Valley (especially Yosemite Village) and ensure adequate security for out-of-Valley lots. Also, in the case of speed limits, before they are enforced, they must first be lowered. "Instead of widening Southside Drive," writes one person, "the speed limit should be reduced." However, in order to accomplish any of the above enforcement measures, adequate enforcement officers must be present in the Valley. One individual poses the following challenge: "If you do not believe that more traffic enforcement and better signs are needed, sit at the Sentinel Bridge intersection for just one hour on a Wednesday."

Finally, a number of people question the need for traffic check stations in west Yosemite Valley–especially at Taft Toe. The Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS should clarify the need for and impacts of such a traffic check station in what is arguably an "exciting and rich habitat," according to one person. Similarly, another person urges the National Park Service to abandon all plans to build a west Valley traffic check station because such a facility constitutes "intrusive and inappropriate development." If a west Valley check station is built near El Capitan crossover, writes another, this facility should not sully the view from Taft Point.

605. Public Concern: The National Park Service should develop a comprehensive traffic management system for Yosemite Valley.

"Develop a complete traffic management system to lessen the impact of the vehicles in the Valley." (Public Hearing, Costa Mesa, CA - #20310)

Response: The traveler information and traffic management system included in Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 would manage the number of vehicles in Yosemite Valley and, potentially, the park so as not to exceed the capacity of parking areas and roads. A reservation system, or other means of allocating access, could be a component of this system and would be considered in the planning process. Development of the traveler information and traffic management system is beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. It would be undertaken with further environmental compliance and public involvement after a Record of Decision for the Yosemite Valley Plan (see Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Introduction, Actions Common to All Alternatives — Traveler Information and Traffic Management).

Proposed traffic management efforts and in-Valley shuttles would be designed to allow visitors to find parking spaces efficiently, park their vehicles in one location, and travel throughout the Valley by a variety of means.

(Also see response to concern #354.)

373. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should address how visitor response to private vehicle restrictions will affect traffic patterns in Yosemite Valley.

"Sociological considerations as they affect traffic do not seem to have been adequately addressed in the Plan. That is, how will people change their travel patterns when they are removed from their cars? Will they seek the lot closest to where they are recreating? It is common sense that people may elect to park [at] lots closest to Yosemite Valley because they want to reduce travel time to and from their cars. The El Portal lot will be 20 minutes closer to Yosemite Valley than the Badger Pass lot and 12 minutes closer than the lot at South Landing. This is likely to make the El Portal lot the most used and therefore supports an argument for increasing parking there." (Business, Yosemite National Park, CA - #3962)

Response: The effects of changing travel patterns into Yosemite Valley would be the subject of ongoing data collection and analysis at Yosemite National Park. The effects of providing out-of-Valley parking and shuttle service on the visitor's experience would be evaluated in conjunction with the traveler information and traffic management system. The traveler information and traffic management system could monitor the travel patterns of visitors and use various strategies to allocate access among parking areas when the demand is high. However, no decision has been reached regarding the use of reservations or other means of allocating access. The operational and policy details of the system would be defined during a subsequent planning process, which would include extensive opportunities for public involvement.

A sequencing plan, indicating the sequence and likely timing of actions, including elements of the traveler information and traffic management system, is presented in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

(Also see response to concern #605.)

324. Public Concern: The National Park Service should improve road signage in Yosemite Valley.

"Improved signage in the Valley will improve not only the seasonal/holiday traffic problems, but the overall enjoyment of the visitor’s experience as well. A huge reduction in cost will also result, new road signs vs. new roads and fleets of buses." (Individual, San Jose, CA - #1323)

"Road signs are most confusing and stop signs are often hidden by trees or bushes. More stop signs." (Individual, Yosemite National Park, CA - #5869)

"Put flashing red emergency lights and signs on Southside Drive that flash and warn drivers when emergency vehicles use Southside in the opposite direction. (Lights that only flash during an emergency–drivers are warned of on coming traffic.)" (Individual, Yosemite National Park, CA - #5898)

Response: National Park staff in Yosemite Valley is currently working to identify transportation improvements in the Valley, including better roadway signs identifying Valley activity areas, improvements to shuttle stops, and the clearing away of tree branches along the road for improved safety. Changes to visitor directional signs will continue to be examined. Specific roadway sign design or the placement of those signs throughout the Valley, however, is beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan and will be addressed in ongoing operational efforts and subsequent design and operational plans.

612. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should prohibit the installation of traffic lights in Yosemite Valley.

"We don’t need stop lights in the Valley. I’d certainly hate to see that happen." (Individual, San Francisco, CA - #67)

Response: Traffic management measures would be developed under the traveler information and traffic management system included in Alternatives 2 through 5. This system would manage the number of vehicles in Yosemite Valley and, potentially, through the park so as not to exceed the capacity of parking areas and roads. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS would also reduce the number of parking spaces in the Valley and locate day-visitor parking in a single parking lot. Removing day-visitor parking from the Valley and implementing the traveler information and traffic management system would markedly reduce traffic congestion, in accordance with the goals of the 1980 General Management Plan. It is anticipated that by reducing traffic levels in the Valley, additional traffic control measures would not be necessary. However, the operational details of traveler information and the traffic management system are beyond the scope of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS and would be determined in subsequent planning processes.

(Also see response to concern #605.)

84. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should address enforcement of parking regulations in Yosemite Valley.

"Would the day-use lot in Yosemite Village be completely free of vehicles by evening? How would this be enforced?" (Individual, Carmichael, CA - #30006)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The traveler information and traffic management system would manage all traffic entering the east Valley and related parking. Use of day-visitor parking lots would vary by user; visitors on an extended day hike or day climb may return to a parking lot late in the evening, while other visitors may spend only a couple hours in the Valley. Enforcement of parking regulations would be required for the system to operate effectively, but the exact methods to be used would be determined subsequent to or concurrent with the traveler information and traffic management system.

(Also see response to concern #605.)

555. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should ensure security for out-of-Valley parking lots.

"I believe parking lots outside of the Valley are fine for preserving the naturalness of the Valley floor. However, they should be well-policed for theft of automobiles and their contents." (Individual, Woodland Hills, CA - #479)

Response: The National Park Service will address this operational issue to ensure the safety of visitors once the out-of-Valley parking lots are complete and used for Valley day visitors.

156. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should establish reduced speed limits on Southside Drive.

"Instead of widening Southside Drive, the speed limit should be reduced. Southside Drive was, after all, designed for two-way traffic and only converted to one-way traffic in 1970." (Individual, Oberlin, OH - #580)

Response: After adoption of the Yosemite Valley Plan, a detailed engineering study would be conducted for Southside Drive. This study would consider operational changes such as speed limits and physical improvements, including wider lanes and safety turnouts. Improvement of the roadway to accommodate 11-foot travel lanes and 2-foot shoulders on each side is the maximum extent of physical improvement that would be considered.

580. Public Concern: The National Park Service should hire additional law enforcement officers to enforce traffic laws in Yosemite National Park.

"Why not use the money to employ law enforcement to specifically enforce the traffic laws in Yosemite. If you do not believe that more traffic enforcement and better signs are needed, sit at the Sentinel Bridge intersection for just one hour on a Wednesday." (Non-NPS Yosemite National Park Employee, Yosemite National Park, CA - #4827)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Details of day-to-day park operations, such as levels of traffic law enforcement, are not relevant to the purpose and need or goals of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Each year, Yosemite National Park undergoes a park management priority setting process, including funding of operations such as law enforcement. Based on yearly priorities, a budget is established for each program area. It is not possible to fund all programs to the extent desired without an increase in the park’s annual operational budget.

Note: One response is provided for concerns #635 and #113, and is placed following concern #113.

635. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should clarify the need for and impacts of a traffic check station near Taft Toe.

"Vague references are made in the Draft Plan. If this is simply a traffic check point in the middle of Southside Drive, it seems odd that in Table 4-72 the traffic check station is listed as having ‘moderate adverse’ biological impacts and ‘moderate adverse’ cultural impacts of ‘archeological deposits and a gathering area.’ If the ‘traffic check station’ is atop Southside Drive why would it have adverse effects on Native American sites, which presumably are off in the woods? Given that there have been no traffic diversions at the gates in about five years and given that visitation to Yosemite has declined since 1996, what is the impetus for such a ‘station?’ The ‘traffic check station,’ which must at minimum encompass 10 acres, is suspiciously close to the woods of Taft Toe, one of the most pristine sections of the Yosemite Valley floor. Not only is the Taft Toe locale an exciting and rich habitat because it encompasses major acreage, but it is a section with the ambience of seeming wilderness that is reminiscent of what it must have been like for John Muir. References also appear in the Draft Plan to ancillary structures for the ‘traffic check station.’ Something tells me this involves asphalt." (Individual, San Francisco, CA - #30241)

Response: See response following concern #113 below.

113. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should prohibit the construction of traffic check stations in west Yosemite Valley.

"Similar to the Taft Toe development, [constructing a traffic check station] brings intrusive and inappropriate development into the western Yosemite Valley. The indicated facility would be not unlike entrance facilities at amusement parks or racetracks. Its function appears limited to diverting day-use traffic from Yosemite Valley, once the available parking spaces for them are filled." (Individual, Los Angeles, CA - #470)

Response: The traffic management station that may be developed at the El Capitan crossover would be an integral part of a traveler information and traffic management system that would be implemented as part of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The traveler information and traffic management system would be designed to provide visitors with the most accurate information possible regarding the real-time availability of parking and overnight accommodations in the Valley and in the rest of Yosemite National Park. Visitors would be informed when they arrived at park entrance stations, and potentially en-route to the park, of the availability of parking spaces for day visits in Yosemite Valley and the status of campgrounds and lodgings. Visitors would be informed of the most convenient locations to park and the shuttle services that would take them to destinations throughout the park. Incentives, such as reduced fees might be provided for visitors who choose to travel to the Valley on out-of-Valley shuttles.

Information would be provided to visitors along the routes they would take from the entrance stations to the out-of-Valley parking areas and on to Yosemite Valley. Visitors would be educated about the convenience of the shuttle service and other advantages so that those visitors who would be better served using shuttles would choose to do so without the need for a control point. The intent of the traveler information and traffic management system would be to minimize the number of visitors who would arrive at the El Capitan crossover without overnight reservations or without having a day-visitor parking space in the east end of the Valley.

If the incentives and visitor information elements of the traveler information and traffic management system are not successful in managing the number of vehicles that travel east of El Capitan crossover so as not to exceed the available parking, and if visitor traffic in the east end of the Valley results in congestion on the roads, only then would a traffic management station be constructed at the El Capitan crossover.

The function of the traffic management station proposed at El Capitan crossover would be to manage entries of all vehicles into the eastern portion of the Valley. Vehicles driven by visitors with overnight accommodations as well as vehicles used by day visitors using dedicated parking spaces in the east Valley would be allowed to pass through the station. The station also would accommodate shuttle and tour bus vehicles as well as administrative traffic entering the Valley. Visitors without overnight accommodations would be directed to the closest available parking when in-Valley parking was full. The function of the traffic management station is to improve the ability of park staff to safely manage traffic and inform visitors of the choices they have for travel to the Valley when day visitor parking is full.

When the restricted access plan has been implemented, El Capitan crossover has been used as a checkpoint. The existing roadway layout and lack of facilities make the job of traffic control difficult and hazardous for park staff and visitors alike. Because there are not multiple lanes and a convenient means for visitors to turn around, all traffic frequently has been directed to leave the Valley, including visitors with overnight accommodations.

The traffic management station would be designed to provide the appropriate capacity to check vehicles, provide by-pass lanes for shuttles and to harmonize with the surrounding environment.

This response also applies to concern #635.

(Also see response to concern #605.)

603. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require that the El Capitan crossover traffic check station not be visible from Taft Point.

"Corresponding design principles should apply to the El Capitan crossover traffic check station. For example, the multiple lanes leading to the traffic check station should not be adjacent, but should be separated by strips of ‘forested and vegetated areas for screening.’ The plan should contain the design criterion that the resulting check station must not be visible from Taft Point (compare YVP, page 4.2-46)." (Individual, Oberlin, OH - #580)

Response: If built, the traffic check station proposed for El Capitan crossover is not expected to be visible from Glacier Point. The traffic check station may be visible from Taft Point. The proposed station is located to a great extent in a forested area and facilities associated with the check station would be minimal. The specific design of the check station, however, is beyond the scope of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS and would be determined in subsequent planning processes.

(Also see response to concern #113.)

4.13.7 ~ Vehicle Management

This subsection compiles comments regarding potential vehicle restrictions in Yosemite Valley. Comments include proposals for limiting day-use visitation through reservation systems and specific management for overnight vehicles.

4.13.7.a ~ General Management Direction

Proposed transportation plans inspire widely divergent concerns and solutions to congestion in Yosemite Valley, including proposals to limit access. One agency is concerned about the consequences that limits on vehicles in Yosemite National Park could have on nearby National Forest recreation sites. Among proposals to exclude or allow vehicles from the park lie scattered suggestions to try experimental no-car days in the Valley. One person asks for three days out of the year to experience "Yosemite like it was in the old days." Another person makes "a pitch for extending the vehicle-free zone through the El Cap Meadow . . . to raise the water table in the meadow and help things thrive there."

In contrast, other people feel strongly that automobile access must be retained in order to preserve a convenient, affordable, and individualized visitor experience. The convenience of private autos for people with disabilities, senior citizens, and families with children are important to many, especially hobbyists who need to bring "lots of gear." Similar sentiments are reflected in comments on mandatory public transportation discussed in Section 4.13.10 ~ Public Transportation.

Respondents suggest means other than limiting access to reduce the number of cars permitted to enter the park. One person demands a solution to the "intolerable auto situation." Not convinced that Yosemite has a continual traffic congestion problem, many people comment that limits are only necessary during peak periods. Others suggest that it would be easier to limit vehicle access to early morning and late evening hours.

Although receptive to bus transportation, respondents recommend the use of alternative transportation solutions that reflect the seasonal fluctuations of vehicle traffic. A year-round transportation program might, one surmises, "discourage park visitation during the off season." Rather than purchase a fleet of buses, one respondent asks, "couldn’t some buses be leased or rented for the busy summer season?"

Restrictions, some argue, are necessary for recreational vehicles. Such large vehicles, "should be banned," declare many. Others say that recreational vehicles are not only hazards on the roads but they take up parking and block the view for other campers. One respondent suggests that "special arrival and departure hours for people with RVs" would help ease congestion on the roads.

One person protests the pass-thru fee policy: "A $20 pass valid for seven days only angers those who need to get across the mountains and turns the road into the most expensive toll road I’ve ever seen."

676. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should address the impact of traffic reduction in Yosemite National Park on adjacent National Forests.

"Auto touring is currently the #1 recreation activity on National Forests. If use of private vehicles is reduced within the Park, adjacent National Forests are likely to see an increase. . . If waiting occurs at the entrance stations, nearby National Forest sites will be heavily impacted." (USDA Forest Service, Sonora, CA - #9221)

Response: The action alternatives in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS would affect auto touring opportunities for day visitors to Yosemite National Park only on the few miles of park roads east of the El Capitan crossover. Auto touring opportunities would continue to exist, with no restriction, on more than 110 miles of major park roads. There would be no change in the ability of visitors to travel through Yosemite National Park from one entrance to another.

Because of limited parking currently available at the major features in eastern Yosemite Valley, auto touring represents only a small portion of the visitor use in this portion of the Valley. Because of the unique features of the east Valley, there are no equivalent substitute experiences outside the park that those who would visit via auto touring could be expected to visit.

The minor impact on parkwide auto touring associated with the action alternatives and the relatively less important role of auto touring to visitation east of El Capitan crossover led to the conclusion that the proposed changes in vehicle access in the action alternatives would have no appreciable effect on auto touring or other recreational use outside Yosemite National Park.

The action alternatives include redevelopment of the park entrance stations to reduce existing queuing problems. It is expected that displacement of recreation use due to queuing at entrance stations would be reduced by the action alternatives in the Yosemite National Park.

143. Public Concern: The National Park Service should evaluate the feasibility of auto-free time periods in Yosemite Valley.

"I support auto-free time periods in the Valley. Cades Cove in Great Smokey Mountain National Park is auto-free until 10 AM each Saturday and Wednesday morning. The situation in Cades Cove is not precisely the same as that in Yosemite Valley, but the basic idea could be tested. For example, the El Capitan crossover traffic check station could prohibit cars from entering the upper Valley until 10 AM." (Individual, Oberlin, OH - #580)

"I would like the Park Service to consider an experiment . . . where . . . at either the beginning or the end of the summer we create a special holiday with no cars in Yosemite, and you can go down as far as Tunnel View or maybe Bridalveil . . . And from therein, you walk in, and we can have three days a year where Yosemite is like it was in the old days." (Public Hearing, Los Angeles, CA - #20339)

Response: The Preferred Alternative includes a traveler information and traffic management system that would manage the number of vehicles in Yosemite Valley and, potentially, the park so as not to exceed the capacity of parking areas and roads. The traveler information and traffic management system would not be used to limit travel through Yosemite. Because trips between the South Entrance and the Arch Rock, Big Oak Flat, and Tioga Road Entrances must travel through the west end of Yosemite Valley, it would not be possible to create auto-free time periods west of El Capitan Crossover. The operational details of the tools in the traveler information and traffic management system, including the possibility of prohibiting vehicle access to the east Valley during certain time periods, are beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The traveler information and traffic management system would be defined during a subsequent planning process that would include opportunities for public involvement.

256. Public Concern: The National Park Service should extend the vehicle free zone to the lower end of El Cap Meadows.

"I’d like to put in a pitch for extending the vehicle-free zone through the El Cap Meadow, the north side there. I think that would be spectacular and, in the process, be able to maybe lower the water table in the black oak woodland and raise it in the El Cap Meadow and help things thrive there, and help the pedestrians be happy there." (Public Hearing, Sonora, CA - #20280)

Response: Extending the vehicle-free zone beyond El Capitan crossover west to Pohono Bridge was considered but dismissed for several reasons. In lieu of Northside Drive being available for vehicle use, several alterations to Southside Drive would be necessary, including the realignment of the Wawona Road/Southside Drive intersection and the replacement of Pohono Bridge to accommodate increased two-way traffic. The designation of the River Protection Overlay zone established in the Merced River Plan/FEIS would prohibit the realignment of Southside Drive at its intersection with the Wawona Road, which would be necessary to accommodate the increase in traffic associated with the closing of Northside Drive to vehicle traffic.

35. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should not limit the number of vehicles allowed into Yosemite Valley.

"We are opposed to future restriction of private vehicle access into the Park. If this restriction is imposed it will profoundly restrict the disabled population and also families with seniors and young children. Many of the above population have personal needs that will be impossible to address on a crowded transit bus." (Individual, Ahwahnee, CA - #20235)

"Despite being a life long conservationist and a Sierra Club member, I vastly prefer the opportunity to drive up and around Yosemite Valley in a car, from sight to sight. Please [leave] room for day visitors to drive in, around and all over the valley. Do not restrict visitors to those who arrive in a bus." (Individual, San Francisco, CA - #148) "As a disabled, aging person I find myself being restricted to seeing what is readily visible from my private vehicle (much less to see). If I’m forced to ride a bus, I can’t come to the Park. Riding in a bus is not a viable option for me, and I suspect thousands of others." (Individual, Mariposa, CA - 348)

"If we . . . see a deer in the bushes and decide to stop the car for a moment to take his picture or just watch him. Tell me how this is possible on a bus? If we decide to have a picnic lunch along the way what do we do, tell the bus driver stop here?" (Individual, Rolling Hills, CA - #1222)

"As a semi-professional photographer who carries lots of gear in my vehicle, I do not want to be forced to park outside the park and be bussed in. . . I realize you cannot single out photographers and give them an exemption as all visitors would claim they are photographers! . . . I feel that forcing me to leave gear in the vehicle in order to get on the bus would be unfair. I am voicing a strong opinion in favor of cars still being allowed in the valley." (Individual, No Address, - #4950)

Response: The Yosemite Valley Plan would not ban private vehicles in the Valley. Most overnight visitors and many day visitors would be able to drive their private vehicles to designated parking areas in Yosemite Valley. After parking their vehicles, visitors would be able to travel to destinations in the Valley by shuttle bus, by walking, and by bicycle. The shuttle bus system would be accessible to people with disabilities and would operate frequently throughout Yosemite Valley.

The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes to reduce vehicle traffic in the Valley to afford visitors a more nature-oriented experience that is less affected by the noise, pollution emissions, and visual presence of motorized vehicles. If visitors were allowed to drive throughout the Valley to any destination, traffic congestion would occur at the most popular destinations, and a greatly expanded number of parking spaces would be needed to accommodate vehicles at scattered destinations. Visitors enjoying the sights in the Valley would be affected by automobiles to an unacceptable extent. To achieve a more nature-oriented experience in Yosemite Valley, the Preferred Alternative would manage the number of vehicles traveling east of El Capitan Crossover to assure that the number of vehicles would not exceed the number of parking spaces. Under the Preferred Alternative, the existing one-way loop along Southside drive from Pohono Bridge, past Bridalveil Fall, across El Capitan Bridge and along Northside Drive to Valley View and Pohono Bridge would remain open to all visitor vehicles.

Special provisions may be made for people with disabilities who are unable to use the accessible shuttle bus system. Special provisions could include allowing people with disabilities to travel in private vehicles to some destinations (similar to current management of the Happy Isles Loop and Mirror Lake Roads) or the availability of electric carts or other special vehicles for people with disabilities.

45. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should restrict the number of vehicles allowed into Yosemite National Park.

"Limit the number of cars permitted to enter the Park on any given day. All other later arrivals would be directed to outside parking areas from which the passengers would be taken by shuttle bus into the Valley. Other suggestions, although worthy ones, are considered far less important when compared to the intolerable auto situation." (Individual, Whittier, CA - #127)

LIMIT NUMBER OF VEHICLES ALLOWED IN YOSEMITE VALLEY

"I strongly support the proposed plan’s call for a 60% reduction in the number of cars in Yosemite Valley. This is necessary to preserve the valley’s natural features and create a more positive experience for visitors there and should be supported." (Individual, Inkster, MI - #425)

"Significantly reduce the number of cars that enter the Valley, with the objective of eliminating all private automobiles as in-Valley and out-of-Valley Transit systems are developed." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #4594)

"In my opinion, the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan doesn’t go quite far enough. I think that the only cars that should be allowed to have access to the Yosemite Valley are those used by the handicapped or the elderly. Everyone else should have to take a shuttle bus. Hopefully the model of bus chosen would be one of the quieter and less polluting varieties." (Individual, San Diego, CA - #25)

PEAK HOURS

"The Draft Plan does a careful job of describing the influx and outflow of cars on peak days. It demonstrates that the primary problem lies with the large influx of day-use vehicles during the course of a summer day. Before and after peak hours, however, there would be no problem with allowing automobile access - the number of vehicles would not be that great in the early morning and late evening hours. We feel that a system restricting automobile access only during peak hours (such as that in use in Devil’s Postpile) would be easier to implement and inconvenience fewer park visitors." (Recreational Organization, Washington, DC - #3800)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS includes a traveler information and traffic management system that would manage the number of vehicles in Yosemite Valley, and potentially the park, so as not to exceed the capacity of parking areas and roads. On days when the number of vehicles is equal to or less than the capacity of the parking areas and roads, a set of management tools would be used to guide people to parking. During the period from November through March, parking for day visitors in Yosemite Valley is expected to be adequate to meet the demand. During the months with higher visitation levels, different management tools would be needed to guide people to available parking. The operational details of the tools in the traveler information and traffic management system are beyond the scope of this planning effort. The traveler information and traffic management system would be defined during a subsequent planning process and would include opportunities for public involvement. Banning all vehicles from Yosemite Valley was an alternative originally considered but was dismissed as described in Vol. IA, Chapter 2 of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

36. Concern: The National Park Service should consider transportation alternatives which address the seasonal fluctuations in traffic volume.

"Traffic is a ‘seasonal’ problem in the Valley, and in fact throughout most of the year traffic is not an issue at all. Alternative 2 does not appear to address the seasonality of the traffic problem and in fact may discourage park visitation during the off season." (Individual, Eugene, OR - #326)

RENT EXTRA BUSES DURING PEAK SEASONS

"I have experienced some terrible traffic problems in late May and early June, but not other times. . . Why purchase a whole fleet of buses that will probably not see much use 8 months out of the year? Couldn’t some buses be leased or rented for the busy summer season?" (Individual, Capitola, CA - #165)

ONLY LIMIT PRIVATE VEHICLES DURING PEAK SEASONS

"I simply do not see the need to mount an all-out attack on motor vehicle use. Under any plan there will come days when the threat of gridlock will require halting all Park access for a time. When this happens there is a twofold effect: (1) immediate drop in visitor access, and (2) a longer term, albeit temporary, drop in visitation. I believe it is better to shut the gates at times, rather than impose arbitrary restrictions all of the time." (Individual, Riverside, CA - #121)

Response: The Preferred Alternative includes a traveler information and traffic management system that would manage the number of vehicles in Yosemite Valley and, potentially, the park so as not to exceed the capacity of parking areas and roads. On days when the number of cars is equal to or less than the capacity of the parking areas and roads, one set of management tools would be used to guide people to parking. During the period from November through March, parking for day visitors to Yosemite Valley is expected to be adequate to meet the demand. During these months, and during other times when visitation is lower than in the peak season, there would be no restrictions on vehicle access to Yosemite Valley. During the months with higher visitation, different management tools would be needed to guide people to available parking. The operational details of the tools in the traveler information and traffic management system are beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The traveler information and traffic management system would be defined during a subsequent planning process, which would include opportunities for public involvement.

304. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should restrict recreational vehicle use in Yosemite National Park.

BAN RECREATIONAL VEHICLES

"Certainly, all RVs should be banned." (Individual, Aptos, CA - 3093)

"I do not think that park values should suffer because some. . . people choose to buy huge vehicles and clog our roads and make them unsafe. The simple solution is to ban such vehicles from the road. There are plenty of new vehicles which are small. . . All of ‘Today’s Vehicles’ do not find it difficult to use that road. Only the giant ones have trouble. Please protect the Park and do not grovel before giant SUV and Winnebago destroyer of the earth. Other places where these giant vehicles have an impact include: Parking places which are very large and take up valuable park land. Poor visibility for people near them (including bikes.) More pollution in the Park. Campgrounds dominated by vehicles blocking views and taking up valuable space." (Individual, Stanford, CA - #2963)

RESTRICT ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE TIMES HOURS FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLES

"Establish special arrival and departure hours for people with RVs on a first-come first-served basis, to ease and regulate road traffic." (Conservation Organization, Camarillo, CA - #2627)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS includes development of a traveler information and traffic management system that would manage the number and types of vehicles in the Valley so as not to exceed capacity of parking areas and roads. Recreational vehicles would be addressed as part of this system. The traveler information and traffic management system would be developed subsequent to the Record of Decision for the Yosemite Valley Plan, and would include additional environmental compliance with ample opportunity for public involvement. Equal consideration would be given to all user groups addressed by the traffic management system.

718. Public Concern: The National Park Service should consider changing the thru-park fee policy for Yosemite National Park.

"The result of your fee policy is to penalize those of us who followed the pass-through rules. . . A $20 pass valid for seven days only angers those who need to get across the mountains and turns the road into the most expensive toll road I’ve ever seen." (Individual, Groveland, CA - #4787)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The primary purpose of roads in parks is to provide access to the park for visitor enjoyment. Fees policy for Yosemite National Park is directed by the Secretary of Interior and Congress and, in part, in recognition of the purpose of park roads. Fee policy is set in Washington, D.C., to ensure uniformity of polity (such as fees on roads that cross parks) across the National Park System.

4.13.7.b ~ Day-visitor Vehicles and Day-visitor Reservations

Concerns regarding day-visitor vehicles are repeatedly connected to suggestions for day-visitor reservations as a means to reduce congestion in the Valley. A day-visitor reservation system, many people propose, could help limit cars and tour buses. One respondent perceives reservation systems as the first phase of vehicle restriction and asks when that might occur. Others state that the National Park Service should require all day visitors to use buses.

137. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should establish a day-visitor reservation system in Yosemite Valley.

"We recommend a daily limit on cars and tour buses. We suggest that a reservation be made in advance to drive into the park and when the limit has been reached, no more vehicles should be allowed in for that day. This will require advance planning for the visitors but will help with congestion and pollution." (Individual, Tehachapi, CA - #26)

"As a traffic management solution, day use automobile reservations would be vastly preferable." (Individual, Long Beach, CA - #5644)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS includes development of a traveler information and traffic management system that would manage the number of vehicles in Yosemite Valley and, potentially, the park so as not to exceed the capacity of parking areas and roads. Reservations or other means of allocating access would be considered in the planning process for the traveler information and traffic management system, which would include extensive public involvement.
(Also see response to concerns #5 and #6.)

5. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should clarify the implementation timeframe for the day-visitor reservation system.

"It appears that the day-use reservation system will be the first phase of any plan to restrict automobile traffic. What is a realistic time table for implementation of a day-use system?" (Individual, No Address - #30002)

Response: A day-visitor reservation system is not specifically called for in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS and it is uncertain if and/or when a system would be developed or implemented. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS Preferred Alternative calls for the design and implementation of a traveler information and traffic management system. This system would be implemented after a planning and environmental compliance process that would include extensive opportunities for public involvement. When the demand for visitor use is higher than the capacity of visitor facilities or park resources. The traveler information and traffic management system could use reservations as part of a strategy to equitably allocate access to areas in Yosemite National Park. However, no decision has been reached regarding the use of reservations or other means of allocating access.

A sequencing plan, indicating the sequence and likely timing of improvements, including elements of the traveler information and traffic management system, is presented as Vol. II, Appendix M in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

6. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should clarify the connection between the day-visitor reservation system and the campground reservation system.

"It appears that the day-use reservation system will be the first phase of any plan to restrict automobile traffic. . . How will it tie to your campground reservation system?" (Individual, No Address - #30002)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) includes the design and implementation of a traveler information and traffic management system. The traveler information and traffic management system would be implemented after a planning and environmental compliance process that would include extensive opportunities for public involvement. The traveler information and traffic management system could use reservations as part of a strategy to equitably allocate access to areas in Yosemite National Park when the demand for visitor use is higher than the capacity of visitor facilities or park resources. However, no decision has been reached regarding the use of reservations or other means of allocating access. The traveler information and traffic management system would need to be coordinated with the parkwide campground and lodging reservation systems. In any case, visitors with camping or lodging reservations in Yosemite Valley would be able to drive to their accommodations without the need for additional Valley reservations.

253. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require day visitors to use buses to access Yosemite Valley.

"Require day visitors to use the buses to get in. Only overnight guests should drive in (for now)." (Individual, No Address - #1453)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS considered but dismissed an alternative that would remove all private vehicles of day visitors from Yosemite Valley. Providing parking for all day visitors to Yosemite Valley in locations outside the Valley and requiring day visitors to ride shuttles to the Valley was also considered but dismissed. Serving all day visitors with shuttles from remote locations would require a large fleet of buses, large parking areas outside the Valley, and year-round operation of the system. The roads leading to the Valley from the north and the south traverse high elevations that are subject to heavy snows in the winter. Operating shuttle buses on these routes in the winter and keeping parking areas cleared of snow would be difficult and expensive. Potential winter road closures could keep some visitors away from their personal vehicles for extended periods, a potential safety hazard. The number of parking spaces provided in the Valley for day visitors is adequate to meet demand from November through March, when the heaviest snows occur. Day visitors in the peak season would use the same in-Valley parking provided, along with out-of-Valley parking.

4.13.7.c ~ Overnight Vehicles

The management of vehicle use for overnight stays concerns many individuals. People question whether vehicle restrictions for campers will also apply to overnight lodgers. Anyone staying overnight in the Valley, many assert, should be required to use alternative or public transportation during their stay. A system similar to the one used in Denali National Park, one person offers, could restrict vehicle traffic east of Taft Toe. Another person suggests windshield stickers to identify overnight vehicles that would remain parked until departure.

59. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should clarify whether the travel restrictions for campers in Yosemite Valley also apply to overnight lodgers.

"I noticed that campers would have to park their cars when they arrive at campsites, and not use them again until they leave. Does this also apply to persons who will be staying at the Ahwahnee and Yosemite Lodge?" (Individual, Walnut Creek, CA - #84)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS discusses parking for all visitors staying overnight in Yosemite Valley. Visitors to Yosemite Valley, whether staying for the day or overnight, would find parking only at lodging, camping, or day-visitor facilities. Parking would be eliminated from other Valley destinations (except, in the short term, for visitors with disabilities and appropriate parking permits).

136. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require overnight visitors to use public transportation in Yosemite Valley.

"Restrict campers from driving around during their stay other than to come to the campground upon arrival and to depart . . . No private vehicle travel after arrival." (Individual, Fresno, CA - #291)

"Vehicles should be used only to enter and leave the park. . . Those staying in the Park whether camping or staying at Camp Curry or the Ahwahnee should walk, bike or take the public transport. Cars need to be parked until you leave." (Individual, Redding, CA - #487)

"Campers should be allowed only entrance and exit privileges–no driving in [the] Park during their stay–same rule should apply to all lodgers (from tent cabins to the Ahwahnee): One entrance, one exit: everything [all travel] during stay [should be] on public transportation." (Individual, Arroyo Grande, CA - #3555)

"The hotel people are the people that need their cars the least, and they should be provided valet-type experiences to move their cars out of the Valley because they don’t need them. . . So I would encourage external parking with shuttles and vans and valet-type experiences for the hotels." (Public Hearing, San Diego, CA - #20434)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does not propose to restrict vehicle use by overnight visitors traveling to and from the Valley from locations outside the Valley. As for all visitors, travel within the Valley by overnight visitors would generally occur via shuttle buses or nonmotorized means, with the possible exception of people with disabilities. Refer to the transportation discussion under Alternative 2 in Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, for additional information regarding use of shuttle buses by park visitors.

333. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should restrict vehicle use east of Taft Toe for the purpose of accessing lodging.

"Transportation–Restrict the use of private vehicles in the Valley east of Taft Toe to entrance and exit only to your reserved place of lodge in. For example, if you are going to stay at Housekeeping, you are allowed to drive in on the day you arrive and park. You unload and leave your car unused until the day of your departure. Then you are allowed to load up again and depart directly to the West. This is the system that is currently in use in Denali National Park to reduce congestion on their one road and it works excellently. . . What about day trip to the high country? I would suggest that people plan them either before or after their Valley visit, or alternatively, use provided public transportation. . . Of course, it goes without saying that an adequate number of Valley shuttles would need to be provided for this plan to work." (Individual, Palo Alto, CA - #3143)

Response: Restricting vehicle use in the Valley east of Taft Toe was considered. A ban on private vehicles in the Valley was found infeasible because of the high cost of providing year-round shuttle service to all Valley visitors. The size and cost of the required fleet of transit vehicles and parking facilities were considered unacceptable at the time.

Alternative 2, the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, instead calls for limited parking in Yosemite Valley designed to meet the parking demand for the off-season months of November through March when visitation is relatively low. This would eliminate the need for costly shuttle service during the off-season. During the peak season, visitors traveling to the Valley in private vehicles would be directed to parking areas at their overnight accommodations or at the designated day-visitor parking area. Once parked, visitors would travel by shuttle or by nonmotorized means to activity areas in the Valley. In order to discourage travel in the Valley by private vehicles, no parking would be available at the activity areas. Day visitors who didn’t park in the Valley would arrive by shuttle bus from parking areas outside the Valley. As a result, a balance of access by shuttle buses and by private vehicles would be provided for day visitors in the peak season. (See the description of Alternative 2 in Vol. IA, Chapter 2 of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.)

514. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should institute a windshield sticker system indicating each vehicle’s Yosemite Valley destination.

"Why not consider attachment of windshield stickers at entrances specifying Valley destination. Cars would not be allowed to leave destination parking until date of departure except for specially arranged day trips (i.e. Wawona, Glacier Point, etc.). All travel after arrival in the Valley to be by foot or shuttle bus." (Individual, San Francisco, CA - #2811)

Response: The Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS includes a traveler information and traffic management system that would manage the number of vehicles in Yosemite Valley and, potentially, the park so as not to exceed the capacity of parking areas and roads. Window stickers or other means of allocating access would be considered in the planning process for the traveler information and traffic management system.

4.13.8 ~ Employee Transportation

Transportation for employees is also addressed in Park Operations under Section 3.16.2 ~ Employee Housing. This section contains a few comments that address the space taken by employee vehicles. One respondent asks that an analysis of the benefits of moving employees out of the Valley and providing a shuttle system for them be included in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Employees working early and late shifts would be better served, another person suggests, by smaller shuttles "to ensure that out-of-Valley employees can reach work via regional transit rather than private automobiles."

714. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should establish shuttle transportation for employees who live outside Yosemite Valley.

"You estimate that there are about 800 day use parking spaces . . . in the Valley. It’s easy to envision many of these spaces occupied by the cars of resident and commuting employees, as you estimate that there are over 1300 of them. How much of the parking problem that dominates your alternatives would be alleviated by relocating some employees and their vehicles to out-of-Valley communities and providing adequate transport from their new abodes back to the Valley? Your analysis is vague on this most crucial point." (Individual, Oakland, CA - #3835)

USE SMALL SHUTTLE VEHICLES

"Our organizations do not believe . . . that the employee transportation system should be so dependent on large buses that late-night and early morning shift workers can not be included. By incorporating jitneys and smaller shuttle vans into the fleet and the TMS, we hope the Park Service can ensure that out-of-Valley employees can reach work via regional transit rather than private automobiles." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #4594)

Response: Employee transportation is an important component of the Yosemite Valley Plan transportation system. The Yosemite Valley Plan calls for the development of an employee transportation system to reduce the number of vehicles commuting into the Valley and therefore the amount of employee parking needed. It is expected that some employees would continue to drive private vehicles when working off-hours when the operation of transit service is not feasible.

Currently the park and the Yosemite Regional Transportation System (YARTS) are working together to encourage the use of a voluntary demonstration regional transit system although this system does not meet the needs of all commuters. Specific operating characteristics of the employee transportation system are beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan and would be addressed as part of a comprehensive operational plan for employee transportation into the Valley.

4.13.9 ~ Alternative Transportation and Fuels

Members of the public note that there are a variety of alternatives to using diesel buses or private autos. Comments in this section discuss the merits of various methods of transportation and make suggestions to incorporate them in the transportation plan.

4.13.9.a ~ Alternative Transportation

Although acceptance of required public transportation is common, many people want the National Park Service to explore other transportation options because of pollution caused by "the proposed diesel bus invasion." They offer a multitude of suggestions:

Electric buses
Electric trains
Natural gas vehicles
Bicycles
Horses and Carts
Golf carts
Gondolas
Blimps
People-powered shuttles

Others express concerns about the use of alternative transportation. Conflict between buses and other types of transportation–such as bicycles–must be expected, states one person. Many who comment include recommendations that shuttle buses be able to accommodate the transport of bicycles to out-of-Valley destinations. Although some respondents suggest light rail, others specifically request restoration of the Yosemite Valley Railroad in order to include the use of regional transportation to Merced.

"The Park Service refuses to consider a rail option . . . while much of California is turning to rail for environmentally sound travel," claims an individual who declares it imperative that the park planners assess this alternative. "Rather than a parade of diesel-spewing buses roaring by every few minutes, a train could arrive every hour leaving the park in peace the rest of the time," states another rail proponent.

The environmental benefits of monorails or trams from Glacier Point to other locations in the park, some suggest, make up for the visual impact of towers and lines. Further benefits could be realized, notes one person, by a solar monorail. With goodwill in mind, one person would like the Park Service to establish a car pool system. "Parking areas might be set up," they assert, "by states, countries, etc., so that tourists can choose to go with someone from their own ‘neck of the woods’ or a foreign country."

41. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should establish low-impact transportation alternatives for Yosemite Valley.

"The technical reasons for continuing diesel bus use are clear; however it would be helpful to have a commitment to exploring other options as technology changes. Has the Park Service considered attempting a major initiative with the transportation industry to develop low impact transportation systems for wide-spread use?" (Individual, Athens, OH - #37)

ELECTRIC BUSES

"One thing I’d like to add: if it’s possible could you please run electric busses in the Valley? I find the constant roaring drone of the buses to be hard to get away from, no matter how high you hike above the Valley floor." (Individual, No Address - #30089)

"Diesel shuttle buses? Are you nuts? They are loud, obnoxious, and they stink. Wait until you have some fuel cell/electric prototypes in hand, and try them for a while before committing to a major upheaval of the transportation system." (Individual, San Jose, CA - #30088)

"The SEIS rejected the concept of operating electric shuttle buses to and from the Valley because current battery technology does not meet operation requirements and the cost exceeds diesel service. . . Considering the 20 years (from the 1980 General Management Plan) it has taken to reach this draft planning phase, the out-of-hand rejection of cleaner bus operations seems short sighted . . . The Plan should encourage the use of cleaner energy buses both in and out of the Valley by identifying them as environmentally superior choices." (Individual, Union City, CA - #4404)

ELECTRIC TRAIN

"Would an electric train be environmentally sound coming up the Merced along the old RR bed? For use of day visitors. It would help road traffic." (Individual, Lakewood, CA - #30066)

"Build a train/monorail line that goes around the loop and stops often for people to get on and off and runs every 10 minutes during the peak season. The train can be powered by hydroelectric power from the Hetch Hetchy dam." (Individual, FPO AP - #403)

NATURAL GAS VEHICLES

"I am also concerned to hear of the proposal for 231 new diesel buses per day. While it is laudable to reduce private car trips in favor of mass transit, diesel buses are serious polluters and the Park Service should consider alternatives such as natural gas-powered vehicles." (Individual, Berkeley, CA - #257)

BICYCLES

"I hope you will consider the important role that bicycling could play in terms of both enhancing the visitor experience and preserving the natural environment . . . To maximize bicycling’s potential in Yosemite Valley, I urge you to take the following steps: Offer free community bikes to all park visitors at transfer facilities as an inexpensive, fun and healthy complement to walking and the valley shuttle. Ensure sufficient lane width on Southside Drive so that drivers of cars, SUV’s, buses and RV’s can safely share the road with bicyclists. Convert Northside Drive to a multi-use facility for non-motorized transportation. Construct a separate Class I path for novice riders near Southside Drive, with design treatment as secondary roadways at all intersections. Install secure bicycle parking at all trailheads. Allow bike access to shared trails where appropriate. Provide bicycle carriage devices on transit and shuttle systems." (Individual, Los Angeles, CA - #110)

"I would suggest that the bike paths circumnavigate the entire Valley and that there be several types of bikes available including the three wheel variety and the four wheel variety. Having a variety of bikes available would make it possible for visitors of varying ability to use the bicycles to tour the valley and carry their picnic baskets and other amenities–giving patrons the ability to travel throughout the valley without having to adhere to bus schedules and the problem of on and off loading." (Recreational Organization, Oakland, CA - #495)

HORSES AND CARTS

"Maybe as one part of the solution, you could get area ranchers to contract with you to be there at certain hours daily to take people in. Horseback or carts. You could say, hey, see it the ‘old fashioned way.’ You could make the ranchers carry insurance and contract with them on a renewable basis. (It is hard to think of too many horses in an area.) Now not all people will want to do this, but a fair amount will. You can get some good fees from the ranchers, say like a straight 70%-30% split or 75-25 ranchers of course getting the lion’s share. I believe it would help to raise money for the Park." (Individual, Olympia, WA - #3173)

GOLF CARTS

"I feel it is the Southside Road that should be closed to bus and vehicle traffic as this is the most scenic for pedestrians and bikers. Electric small golf cart type vehicles could be available for families and one lane provided for these. They are very quiet." (Individual, North Fork, CA - #6377)

GONDOLAS

"Our personal preference would have been 4-seat closed gondolas connecting the Valley with both the Foresta area and an area near Glacier Point. Gondolas with handicap access could move large numbers of visitors with minimal impact on wildlife, air quality and the scenic values of the Park. Camouflaged among trees and crevices, gondolas are by far the most silent, energy efficient and non-polluting form of transportation. . . A railroad is sometimes proposed by environmentally sensitive people. This would involve as much physical disruption, noise and impact on wildlife as a road. . . No alternative has the efficiency of gondolas in moving people up and down a mountain with minimum impact." (Individual, Sonora, CA - #2974)

BLIMPS

"It doesn’t make sense to increase buses and reduce autos. Currently there are enough buses on highway 41. . . [buses] also produce pollution and are not designed for curved mountain roads. . . Perhaps in the future using blimps (airships) would be a welcome alternative." (Individual, Fish Camp, CA - #2247)

PEOPLE-POWERED SHUTTLES

"I feel it is time for people-powered shuttles in the Valley. Since the Valley is so flat, tremendous amounts of horsepower don’t seem needed. I would like to see buses in the valley that have a set of pedals at every seat. . . All pedals would be connected to a main drive shaft and an employee would steer." (Individual, Wilton, CA - #5488)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes the use of rubber-tired transit technology to transport visitors to the Valley from out-of-Valley parking areas as well as transporting visitors within the Valley. Other technologies were considered but dismissed because of high costs and the potential for significant environmental impacts from construction. Fixed guideway transit systems would cost $10 to $20 million per mile for at-grade systems, with elevated systems costing up to three times more. In the case of elevated systems (such as monorail), light rail (which is powered by overhead electric wires), and gondola transit (which is propelled using a cable drawn by electric or other types of motors along an aerial guideway), the visual impacts of the systems caused them to be dismissed. Most fixed guideway transit technologies would not be feasible to transport visitors into the Valley because of the steep grades that must be crossed. Specialized transit systems, like cog railways and cable-suspended transit, might be feasible, but they would be very expensive, would require new construction in undisturbed areas, and they could be visually disruptive. Human powered transit and blimps were dismissed because they have not been proven to be feasible for the type of service needed in Yosemite. Horse-powered transportation was dismissed due its incompatibility with motorized transportation on roads, low speed, and low capacity. Bus systems would take advantage of the existing roads in the park and allow service to be modified as required during the day and over the course of the year. See Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Alternatives Considered but Dismissed, for additional information regarding rail transit options.

Developing transit systems outside the park, such as restoring the Yosemite Valley Railroad, is beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. This planning effort does not preclude other agencies and organizations from developing new transportation facilities to bring visitors to the park. The proposed system of shuttle buses from El Portal to the Valley could serve passengers arriving on a new railroad if outside agencies develop such a project.

The emission analysis shows that annual emissions of volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter less than 10 microns in size would be reduced under the Preferred Alternative, using diesel engine technology, as well as with alternative fuels. The use of diesel technology for the shuttle bus fleets would slightly increase compounds of nitrogen oxide emissions compared to the No Action Alternative. For some pollutants, such as carbon monoxide, diesel technology would reduce emissions compared to compressed natural gas or propane engines. Proposed regulations regarding diesel fuel composition and diesel engine emissions reductions could substantially reduce emissions from diesel powered shuttle buses after 2007.

The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does not prescribe or preclude the use of specific engine technologies or propulsion systems for shuttles operating in Yosemite Valley or shuttles serving out-of-Valley parking lots. When shuttle services are implemented, Yosemite National Park would select buses with the required operating characteristics and features that offer the lowest possible pollutant and noise emissions that provide reliable service in heavy daily use at an affordable cost.

The federal government, through the Department of Energy, has several programs aimed at the development of alternative fuel technologies. The DOE’s Office of Transportation Technologies manages these programs. The programs study the viability of replacing conventional fuels (diesel and gasoline) with alternative fuels, reducing dependence on foreign petroleum and reducing pollutant emissions. The National Park Service has a mandate to use clean technology whenever feasible.

A major consideration in selecting engine and propulsion technology now and in the future is the availability of alternative fuels. There is no practical and economically viable means of obtaining natural gas in Yosemite National Park. Developing natural gas delivery facilities for the park is beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan and beyond the capabilities of the National Park Service.

Yosemite has several battery-electric buses in the fleet of Valley shuttles. These buses have been placed in service in Yosemite Valley as a result of demonstration programs. There have been numerous challenges with the electric buses, including unreliable operation, short operating range, and low passenger-carrying capacity. Current battery technology does not allow adequate energy to be stored on board buses to support all-day service with fully loaded, full-size transit buses. Quick-charging technology may address some of the problems with battery-electric buses, but at present, this technology is considered inappropriate for the requirements of the shuttle systems serving Yosemite Valley.

Fuel-cell technology is being developed for buses. Vehicles are not expected to be commercially available within the next five years. The resource and visitor experience benefits of the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS are considered to be of significant value. Waiting for the uncertain availability of new transit propulsion technologies would delay those benefits. As new and better transit bus technology becomes available, the park can upgrade and improve the transit system.

The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS presents emissions impacts for the following transit propulsion and fuel systems: diesel internal combustion engine, compressed natural gas internal combustion engine, propane internal combustion engine, and fuel cell with electric motors. Other propulsion technologies, such as hybrids with internal combustion engines and electric motors may be appropriate for use in Yosemite.

Different bus technologies may be selected for the in-Valley and out-of-Valley shuttles because of the different operating environments of the two types of shuttles. The fleet would be upgraded over time when feasible to use the cleanest and quietest available technology.

The National Park Service has committed in Vol. IA, Chapter 1 of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS to continue strategies to implement technologies that reduce mobile sources of air pollution.

The Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS substantially expands the facilities available for bicycle use. Northside Drive is proposed to be converted to a multi-use trail for use by bicyclists and walkers. New multi-use trails are proposed elsewhere in the Valley. Because of topography, developing multi-use trails separate from the existing roadways is difficult west of El Capitan crossover on the north and south sides of the Merced River.

Bicycles are currently available for rent in the Valley. Alternative 2 proposes to provide bicycle rental facilities near the in-Valley parking area for day visitors and the transit hub. Transit buses serving as Valley shuttles and the out-of-Valley shuttle fleet would be equipped to carrying bicycles, perhaps using front and/or rear mounted bike carriers that have been proven in urban use. Providing loaner bicycles for use without charge would be an operational decision that is beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan.

271. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should address the potential safety hazards of bicycle traffic in Yosemite Valley.

"Undoubtedly, there will be conflict; conflict, that’s a technical term. Conflict is when the car runs over the bicycle. We need to address this issue in our plans. Eventually one of the shuttle buses is going to be involved in conflict. Undoubtedly, there will be a lawsuit. We need to plan for that too." (Public Hearing, Oakland, CA - #20128)

Response: Bicycle safety in the Valley is an important aspect of the transportation system in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Today bicycles are allowed only on the 12 miles of multi-use paved trails and roads in Yosemite Valley. All of these multi-use trails are shared with hikers, and a few small segments are also shared with horseback riders. No bicycle trails exist in the west Valley, and bicycles must share the narrow and often crowded Northside and Southside Drives with motor vehicles.

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS address the need to reduce the level of conflict among bicycles, vehicles, pedestrians, and horseback riders. All alternatives call for the conversion of Northside Drive (one lane in Alternative 5) to a multi-use paved trail, which would be closed to vehicles, and a new multi-use paved trail adjacent to Southside Drive between Swinging Bridge and El Capitan crossover would be constructed. These designated paved trails would allow safe and convenient bicycle access to the west Valley. Visitors would be able to access major Valley attractions and numerous recreational sites without the risk of conflict with Valley traffic.

272. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should address the need for bicycle shuttle services.

"Now, later on in the afternoon, these same cyclists, let’s say all of them, are going to want to expand their beautiful visit to the Valley Floor, so they’re going to say, ‘Shoot, we’ll just take the bus back up the hill.’ So there’s going to be a big spike in people late in the afternoon wanting to haul their bicycles back up the hill. Now, undoubtedly, these shuttle buses are going to have bumper racks; these bumper racks hold what, three or four? Well, we need to be concerned about this spike in bicycle hauling in our planning." (Public Hearing, Oakland, CA - #20128)

Response: Bicycle transportation in the Valley is an important component of the transportation system. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS alternatives include the expansion of bicycle and pedestrian paths throughout the Valley and the retention of bicycle rentals in the Valley. Bicycle parking facilities would be developed as part of the Valley area site design.

With the implementation of out-of-Valley parking areas, the transport of bicycles aboard the shuttle system is important. Out-of Valley shuttle buses would be equipped with bicycle racks. However, the details of this issue would be examined in the operational plan for out-of-Valley shuttle service during scheduling, and in the procurement of shuttle vehicles. The accommodation of bicycles and the potential increases in ridership at certain times of day are aspects of service that would be examined in the operational planning phase but are beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan.

60. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require restoration of the Yosemite Valley Railroad.

"Have you considered restoring the Yosemite Valley Railroad between Merced and El Portal? This would allow visitors to use Amtrak to get to Merced and transfer seamlessly to the YVRR. . . Visitors arriving by car would find more parking available at Merced than at El Portal." (Individual, Walnut Creek, CA - #16)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The Yosemite Valley Railroad was located in the Merced River Canyon and ended at El Portal. Re-establishing the railroad would entail transportation improvements exclusively outside the boundaries of Yosemite National Park. None of the proposed alternatives in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS would preclude restoration of the Yosemite Valley Railroad by entities outside the National Park Service.

418. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should include an analysis of rail transportation.

"The YVP simply is not finished until a rail analysis is completed. The entirely appropriate issue of rail to the Park has been dismissed with no alignment study, no sort of cost estimate and no consideration of appropriate technology for such a service. . .We propose a new ‘Yosemite Railroad.’ Not only would rail service be faster than the proposed diesel bus invasion of the park, but would dramatically reduce pollution inside the Park. Mobile source emission is a major issue in Yosemite, which appears to be completely ignored, or exacerbated in the YVP. Sierra’s proposal includes the use of locomotives using liquid natural gas (LNG), a proven technology readily available. LNG eliminates up to 99% of the emissions of equivalent diesel powered engines. Unlike compressed natural gas, the fuel is highly stable and relatively easy to store. And unlike any sort of electric technology, it has the horsepower necessary to climb the grades going into the park. Sierra is building a LNG conversion facility in Oakdale. A single LNG-fueled train can carry up to 1200 passengers in comfort in d-3 hours from Riverbank (this is as at least as fast as someone could drive by car). Rather than a parade of diesel-spewing buses roaring by every few minutes, a train could arrive every hour leaving the park in peace the rest of the time." (Business, Oakdale, CA - #4495)

"In about six pounds and something like 1,600 pages of Draft Yosemite Valley Plan, the Park Service refuses to consider a rail option. This head-in-the-sand approach to ‘planning’ comes while much of California is turning to rail for environmentally sound travel. . . Its time for the National Park Service in Yosemite to look to the future and get on track by considering rail now as a viable alternative." (Individual, San Francisco, CA - #30241)

Response: The development of new transportation systems to bring visitors to Yosemite National Park from remote out-of-park locations is outside the scope of this planning effort. The Yosemite Valley Plan would not preclude organizations other than the National Park Service from developing new transportation systems, including rail lines, to the park. Rail lines have never operated into Yosemite Valley, most likely because there is no economically viable, technically feasible route for trains to follow across the difficult terrain that leads to the Valley from all directions. See Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered but Dismissed, in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS for a discussion of the consideration of rail transit options.

Rail transportation was considered as an option for transporting visitors from out-of-Valley parking areas into the Valley. Rail technology was dismissed because of the high cost of developing new rail lines, because standard rail technology cannot be used on grades as steep as those leading into Yosemite Valley, and because the construction of new rail lines would cause disturbance to currently undeveloped land along the entire route of the rail line. In addition, train locomotives, whether powered by diesel or natural gas, are substantially noisier than buses. Electrically powered rail technology, such as that used in the Swiss mountain railway system could have acceptable noise characteristics, but the overhead electric lines would be visually disruptive. Rail technology also was considered for transit service within the Valley, but it was dismissed due to high costs, the need to disturb additional land, and the visual impacts of overhead electric lines.

While air quality in Yosemite National Park is very important, the pollution levels in the park are generally caused by importation of pollutants from other areas, not by mobile source emissions originating in the park.
(Also see response to concern # 41.)

320. Public Concern: The National Park Service should build a tram from Yosemite Valley to Glacier Point.

"We should face and consider some travel facilities which will serve and reserve though now despised. This may include: A tram which will pick up near Vernal Falls and proceed quite well out of sight up Illilouette to Glacier Point, and with no ground access except at top and bottom. This will eliminate most of the urge to have a private car on the Floor." (Individual, San Rafael, CA - #1609)

Response: Developing a tram from the floor of Yosemite Valley to Glacier Point has been considered in the past. Such a tram would provide an alternative means of traveling to Glacier Point from the Valley in addition to the options of private vehicle transportation and travel on concession-operated buses that are available today. The tram would probably be viewed as a recreational attraction by visitors, rather than as a means of transportation between the two locations. There is no evidence that adding such an attraction would reduce the demand for travel by private vehicles to the Valley, because Glacier Point is not on any of the direct approach routes to the Valley and because parking at Glacier Point is extremely limited. Developing such a tram could marginally reduce the demand for travel by private vehicles to Glacier Point, but this would be achieved at the cost of increasing the demand for parking in Yosemite Valley.

344. Public Concern: The National Park Service should build a monorail from Glacier Point to Wawona.

"We should face and consider some travel facilities which will serve and reserve though now despised. This may include a monorail suspended from inconspicuous supports through beautiful back country from Glacier Point to Wawona and thence on through back country to and through Mariposa Big Trees, with no access to the ground after leaving Wawona." (Individual, San Rafael, CA - #1609)

"We would like to support a solution of a solar powered monorail system. Yes the overhead power lines would have some visual impacts . . . [but people won’t mind] knowing that this progressive transit system provides cleaner air and water to this precious resource. If the batteries in the winter time are not sufficient, then we could use fuel but this would only be the exception not the rule." (Individual, Malibu, CA - #3832)

Response: Developing a monorail or other conveyance between Glacier Point and Wawona or between any of the locations outside Yosemite Valley is beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley planning effort.
(Also see Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered but Dismissed, in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS for a discussion of monorail and other rail transit options.)

1. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should establish a car-pool system for Yosemite National Park visitors.

"An idea for a possible alternative or one in conjunction with YARTS would be to promote voluntary state or country car-pooling or a mix of state/country. Since Yosemite is a melting pot of people from all over the world this would be a great opportunity for people to come together to see and help preserve a national treasure at the same time in one vehicle rather than 2 or 3. Possibly an entry discount could be offered or some other small reward as an incentive. Parking areas might be set up by states, countries etc. so that tourists can choose to go with someone from their own ‘neck of the woods’ or a foreign country to learn/promote the good ol’ USA etc." (Individual, Auburn, PA - #4)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Parkwide transportation solutions would be evaluated subsequent to the Yosemite Valley Plan through a traveler information and traffic management system, which would include a separate public involvement process and environmental compliance.

Yosemite National Park Home Page
http://www.nps.gov
File created/updated
Yosemite National Park Web Manager