National Park Service: Opportunities to Improve the		 
Administration of the Alternative Transportation Program	 
(15-NOV-02, GAO-03-166R).					 
                                                                 
In light of the increasing significance and potential costs of	 
dealing with transportation in the national park system, we	 
reviewed the Park Service's administration of the Alternative	 
Transportation Program. Specifically, we are reporting on the	 
Park Service's processes for (1) ensuring that alternative	 
transportation projects are needed and cost-effective, and (2)	 
evaluating the performance of the program. It is important to	 
point out that in addressing these issues our work focused on the
agency's process for reviewing and approving projects.		 
Accordingly, we did not evaluate whether any specific project was
in fact needed and cost-effective. In conducting the work, we	 
examined agency files for a sample of 20 projects--10 planning	 
projects and 10 construction projects--that account for 54	 
percent of the total program funding for fiscal year 2001 through
fiscal year 2003.						 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-166R					        
    ACCNO:   A05536						        
  TITLE:     National Park Service: Opportunities to Improve the      
Administration of the Alternative Transportation Program	 
     DATE:   11/15/2002 
  SUBJECT:   National parks					 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Recreation areas					 
	     Environmental monitoring				 
	     National Park Service Alternative			 
	     Transportation Program				 
                                                                 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-03-166R

Page 1 GAO- 03- 166R National Park Service Alternative Transportation
Program

November 15, 2002 The Honorable Joe Skeen Chairman The Honorable Norman D.
Dicks Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Interior and Related
Agencies Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives

Subject: National Park Service: Opportunities to Improve the
Administration of the Alternative Transportation Program

Almost 280 million people visited U. S. national parks in 2001, many
touring the parks in private automobiles. Frequently, particularly during
the summer months and on holiday weekends, some of the more popular parks
experience traffic congestion. When this occurs, it detracts from
visitors* enjoyment of the parks and damages natural resources as vehicles
idle on congested roads or are parked on unpaved areas when parking lots
are full. Each year, as peak vacation periods approach, prospective park
visitors are made aware of these conditions as newspapers and television
present stories and images of frustrated visitors in bumper- to- bumper
traffic at some of the large, highly visited parks like Yellowstone,
Yosemite, and Acadia.

To alleviate these conditions, some parks offer visitors alternatives to
driving their own vehicles, such as shuttle buses or trams. Congress
encouraged the use of such alternatives through enactment of the
Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century in 1998. Among its many
purposes, this legislation authorized funding for enhancing or developing
park transportation systems to improve visitors* experiences and reduce
damage to natural resources throughout the national park system. To
administer these funds, the National Park Service established the
Alternative Transportation Program in 1998. Program objectives include
relieving traffic and parking congestion; reducing air, noise, and visual
pollution; enhancing visitor experience; preserving natural and cultural
resources; and improving safety conditions.

Funding for the program has averaged about $9. 5 million per year from
fiscal year 1999* the first year funds were obligated under the program*
through fiscal year 2002. So far, the Park Service has approved funding
for 185 transportation projects in 75 parks. Project scope and costs vary
considerably. They range from small planning projects, such as a $4, 000
project to

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

Page 2 GAO- 03- 166R National Park Service Alternative Transportation
Program

examine transportation alternatives at Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania
National Military Park in Virginia, to large construction projects, such
as a $2. 2 million project at Grand Canyon National Park to fund the
initial design and construction phase of a proposed light rail system. 1
Planning projects approved as part of the Alternative Transportation
Program may focus on determining if a transportation system is needed,
while construction projects may focus on expanding an existing system or
implementing the initial stage of a large system such as the Grand
Canyon*s. In the case of the Grand Canyon, a recent study estimated that
the entire light rail system, if it is completed, may cost as much as $300
million, including operations and maintenance costs. 2 A Department of
Transportation study estimated that over the next 2 decades, total funding
needs for alternative transportation systems throughout the Park Service,
including operations and maintenance costs, could be as much as $1. 5
billion. 3

In light of the increasing significance and potential costs of dealing
with transportation in the national park system, we reviewed the Park
Service*s administration of the Alternative Transportation Program.
Specifically, we are reporting on the Park Service*s processes for (1)
ensuring that alternative transportation projects are needed and cost-
effective, and (2) evaluating the performance of the program. It is
important to point out that in addressing these issues our work focused on
the agency*s process for reviewing and approving projects. Accordingly, we
did not evaluate whether any specific project was in fact needed and cost-
effective. In conducting the work, we examined agency files for a sample
of 20 projects* 10 planning projects and 10 construction projects* that
account for 54 percent of the total program funding for fiscal year 2001
through fiscal year 2003. The details of the scope and methodology used in
our analysis are in enclosure I.

Results in Brief

The Park Service*s process for ensuring that transportation projects are
needed and cost effective could be strengthened. Park Service policies
require, among other things, that park managers justify the need for a
proposed transportation project and its cost- effectiveness through the
collection and analysis of specific supporting data, such as an analysis
of possible alternatives and operating and maintenance costs. However,
this information is not required to be provided to headquarters officials
when they are reviewing proposed projects for approval and prioritization.
Instead, the agency allows park managers to justify proposed projects by
providing descriptions of how they would meet broad agencywide objectives
such as protecting natural resources or enhancing the experience of park
visitors. As a result, proposed transportation projects are routinely
approved and prioritized by Park Service headquarters officials based on
these broad descriptions without the benefit of supporting information
demonstrating the specific need for the proposed projects or their cost-
effectiveness. Only 1 of the 20 project files we examined included
information demonstrating the need for and cost- effectiveness of the
proposed project. Under these circumstances, the Park Service cannot
ensure that its process for approving and prioritizing transportation
projects is effective in identifying the most meritorious projects. Park
Service officials acknowledge that the approval process needs to be
revised and told us they plan to change the process so that park managers
will be required to provide this supporting information when submitting
future project proposals.

1 Planning projects emphasize data collection, problem identification, and
analysis of alternative solutions. Construction projects focus on building
transportation systems or procuring new equipment such as rolling stock. 2
Grand Canyon National Park, Draft Report to Congress on Transit
Alternatives, July 2001.

3 Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Federal
Lands Alternative Transportation Systems Study,

August 2001.

Page 3 GAO- 03- 166R National Park Service Alternative Transportation
Program

The Park Service has not developed an effective process for evaluating the
performance of the Alternative Transportation Program. Currently, the
agency does not have a process for systematically or objectively
determining what, if any, progress the program is making toward meeting
its objectives. For example, a major objective of the program is to
improve the quality of visitor enjoyment by relieving traffic and parking
congestion in parks. However, because the agency has not established goals
for reducing such congestion or identified how congestion will be
measured, the agency has no objective means of evaluating performance.
Accordingly, determining what is being accomplished by an individual
project or the program as a whole is based on the subjective judgments of
agency managers. This results in diminished accountability since there is
no effective way to determine what is being accomplished with the funds
provided, and no effective means for providing agency managers or Congress
with assurance that the projects are the most effective in achieving the
results desired for the program.

This report contains recommendations aimed at improving the project
approval process and enhancing the agency*s evaluation of the program*s
performance. We discussed a draft of this report with Park Service
officials, who told us they agree with our recommendations and are
planning to implement them. We also requested comments from the Department
of the Interior, but none were provided.

Background

Visitation rates in U. S. national parks have grown significantly in the
past 2 decades. From a total of about 220 million visitors in 1980,
visitation is approaching 290 million today. As parks host more visitors,
many park transportation infrastructures have not kept pace.

Congress placed increased emphasis on transportation in and around
national parks by passing the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA- 21) in 1998. The legislation provided federal land
management agencies, including the Park Service, with increased
responsibilities for managing transportation activities. Funding for
meeting these responsibilities has been provided through the Department of
Transportation, which annually funds the Park Service to initiate or
expand alternative transportation systems where appropriate, to manage
adverse impacts of increased traffic, and to reduce the adverse effects of
private vehicles on natural and cultural resources, and on visitor
experiences.

Proposed alternative transportation projects are initiated at the park
level. After preliminary screening at the regional level, proposed
projects are reviewed by headquarters officials. A team of senior
headquarters and field officials rate and prioritize project proposals
against broad objectives linked to the agency*s mission and strategic
goals. These include such objectives as providing visitor services,
protecting natural resources, and protecting health, safety, and welfare.

Of the 185 projects that the Park Service has approved since the program
began, 131 are planning projects, which emphasize data collection, problem
identification, and analysis of alternative solutions. The remaining 54
projects are construction projects, which focus on building transportation
systems or their components, or procuring new equipment such as rolling
stock. The median cost of planning projects has been $75, 000, while the
median cost for construction projects has been $419, 000. Enclosure II
includes information on the number and estimated costs of projects
approved under the Alternative Transportation Program since it began.

The Park Service Could Strengthen Its Review and Approval Process by
Ensuring That Proposed Projects Are Needed and Cost- Effective

Among other things, Park Service policies require that individual park
managers justify the need for a proposed project and its cost-
effectiveness by analyzing alternatives, including those that do not
involve construction, and by providing total cost estimates that include
information on operations and

Page 4 GAO- 03- 166R National Park Service Alternative Transportation
Program

maintenance costs. However, this information is generally not provided to
agency decisionmakers when they are approving and prioritizing project
proposals. Instead, project proposals are approved and prioritized based
on generalized descriptions of how proposed projects will contribute to
accomplishing broad agencywide objectives. Without the benefit of having
specific information about project alternatives and total project costs,
the agency cannot ensure that its process for approving and prioritizing
transportation projects is effective in selecting the most meritorious
projects. Agency officials told us that they agree with our analysis and
plan to revise the process by requiring that this information be provided
to agency decisionmakers when projects are being considered for approval.

Under current Park Service requirements, the need for and cost-
effectiveness of each proposed project is to be demonstrated by supporting
information and analysis. Specifically, the Park Service*s policy manual 4
requires park managers to fully explore alternatives before making a
decision to design or construct new transportation systems or to expand
existing systems. The alternatives are to include those that do not
involve new construction such as improving the flow of traffic through the
park by rerouting cars. If these alternatives will not achieve
satisfactory results, then park managers may pursue new construction
projects if certain conditions are met. These conditions include
demonstrating that the projects will not cause visitation to exceed the
area*s ability to handle increased levels of visitation, commonly referred
to as *carrying capacity.* 5 To support a project*s cost- effectiveness,
the Park Service*s policy manual requires park managers to consider
estimated total costs when planning, designing, and constructing
transportation projects. 6 In making this determination, total costs are
to include all costs incurred over the project*s useful life, including
expenditures for acquisition, construction, and annual operations and
maintenance. In addition, Director*s Order Number 90 and a related
Director*s Memorandum require park managers to conduct an analysis to
demonstrate that each proposed project is the most cost- effective way to
meet the park*s transportation needs. For construction projects with cost
estimates of $500,000 or more, the Director*s Order requires managers to
consider the purpose of the project and its estimated costs and expected
benefits, then evaluate alternative designs to determine whether a
different design could achieve the same purpose at a lower cost without
sacrificing performance, reliability, quality, or safety.

To determine whether this kind of key information was being provided to
Park Service decision makers in approving and prioritizing proposed
projects, we reviewed 10 approved planning projects and 10 approved
construction projects that we judgmentally selected from the most recently
approved projects. These recent projects included all of those approved
for funding during fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2003. We selected
the 10 planning projects with the highest estimated costs. However,
because construction projects with estimated costs of $500,000 or higher
are subjected to an additional review, we wanted to review projects whose
estimated costs were above and below this threshold. Accordingly, we
selected the five construction projects with the highest estimated costs
above this threshold, and the five construction projects with the highest
estimated costs below the threshold. Collectively, the 20 projects sampled
represented 54 percent of the total estimated costs of $29. 8 million for
all projects approved for the 3- year period. A brief description of these
projects is shown in table 1.

4 U. S. National Park Service, Management Policies 2001, U. S. Department
of the Interior, National Park Service, section 9.2, p. 107. December 27,
2000. 5 Park managers are required to identify visitor carrying capacities
for managing public use of their parks (section 8. 2, p. 81 of the

U. S. National Park Service Management Policies 2001, December 27, 2000).
6 U. S. National Park Service, Management Policies 2001, December 27,
2000, section 9. 1, p. 100.

Page 5 GAO- 03- 166R National Park Service Alternative Transportation
Program Table1: Listing of Alternative Transportation Projects in Our
Sample

Park unit/ state Project purpose/ description Estimated

cost Planned

fiscal year funding Planning projects

Cape Cod National Seashore- Massachusetts

Develop a comprehensive long- term transportation plan to propose
solutions to present traffic congestion and parking problems.

$300,000 2001 Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park-
Tennessee a

Evaluate traffic congestion and impacts of relocating a major highway
around the park as part of a regional transportation study.

400,000 2002 Golden Gate National Recreation Area-- California

Reduce automobile congestion by examining future shuttle system, and
satellite parking options.

310,000 2001 Great Smoky Mountains National Park-- Tennessee

Collect park capacity data and information on alternatives as part of
Phase II of a park transportation planning study to address increased
congestion in and around the park.

286,000 2001 Great Smoky Mountains National Park-- Tennessee

Collect data on biological and cultural resources potentially affected by
a transportation system as part of Phase III of a park transportation
planning study.

337,500 2002 Great Smoky Mountains National Park-- Tennessee

Develop an environmental impact statement as part of Phase IV of a park
transportation planning study.

299,200 2003 Keweenaw National Historical Park-- Michigan

Analyze potential alternative transportation systems that will protect
park resources and provide safe visitor access to the park and surrounding
areas.

300,000 2003 Mesa Verde National Park- Colorado

Examine potential transportation systems, including a gondola system, to
address congestion and safety concerns.

460,000 2001 National Capital Parks- Central -Washington, D. C. area

Develop transportation system to replace a 30- year old system that cannot
effectively address congestion in the nation*s capital.

286,000 2001 Northeast Region-- Boston, Massachusetts area

Develop new information services for improving visitor access to NPS sites
in and around Boston Harbor.

266,000 2001

Construction projects

Acadia National Park-- Maine Implement changes to existing transportation
system: Installation of electronic destination bus signs, purchase of
bicycle trailers, and conversion of existing building into bus depot and
information station.

481,600 2003 Cuyahoga Valley National Park-- Ohio

Construct four station shelters and platforms for existing system to
enhance visitor access and provide a safer environment during inclement
weather.

468,000 2003 Cuyahoga Valley National Park-- Ohio

Rehabilitate unsafe railroad crossing signals used for a historic railway
through the park.

338,200 2001 Fire Island National Seashore- New York

Construct a ferry terminal and support facilities to improve access to the
national seashore and reduce dependency on automobiles.

420,000 2001 Grand Canyon National Park- Arizona

Construct a 480- space parking lot and visitor orientation center to allow
visitors to park their cars and take the transit system to the park, thus
addressing current safety and noise concerns.

3, 300,000 2003 Grand Canyon National Park- Arizona b

Select and fund contractor for managing the design and construction of a
light rail system to alleviate increasing park congestion, and completion
of an archeological mitigation study.

2, 227,000 2001 North Cascades National Park -Washington

Determine feasibility and design of a floating dock facility, including an
on shore shelter with restrooms and orientation displays to improve access
for disabled visitors and improve visitor information.

432.000 2003 Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area- California c

Design and lease or purchase of a 26- passenger shuttle system, including
construction of a parking area and public restroom to mitigate increased
congestion, pollution, and noise.

1, 130,000 2002 Yosemite National Park- California

Expand shuttle service in park by procuring additional vehicles to meet
increased demand.

3, 100,000 2002 Yosemite National Park- California

Develop a new traffic information system to help park address increased
congestion and resource degradation.

990,080 2001 a Subsequent to project approval, the Park Service has
decided to fund this project outside the Alternative Transportation
Program. b Due to congressional concern about costs, this project was re-
focused to include a report on alternatives to the light- rail system. c
During the course of our review, this project was re- scoped into a
smaller project, with initial funding of $175,524 authorized for fiscal
year 2001.

Source: National Park Service project files.

Page 6 GAO- 03- 166R National Park Service Alternative Transportation
Program

The Park Service policy and implementing guidance covering need and cost
requirements apply to both planning and construction projects. However,
planning projects are often initiated for the very purpose of collecting
data and completing analyses to determine if a transportation system is
needed. Consequently, in reviewing planning project proposals, we
determined if the information provided in the proposals included plans to
study non- construction alternatives and develop capacity studies, and
whether they included plans to estimate total costs or the project*s cost-
effectiveness.

Our detailed analysis of the 20 project proposals showed that park
managers have often submitted project proposals that describe project need
but usually do not contain information on non- construction alternatives
or park capacity. In addition, while each of the proposals included
information on estimated project costs, the cost information typically did
not include operations and maintenance costs or information on the cost-
effectiveness of the project. As shown in table 2, only 1 of the 20
project proposals we reviewed* Mesa Verde* contained all of information as
depicted by the *.* in each of the four columns in the table.

Page 7 GAO- 03- 166R National Park Service Alternative Transportation
Program Table 2: Information Provided in Alternative Transportation
Project Proposals

Need criteria Cost criteria Park/ project

Proposal addresses non- construction

alternatives Proposal addresses

park capacity data Proposal addresses

total cost* including operations & maintenance

Proposal addresses analysis of cost effectiveness Planning projects

Cape Cod * long- term transportation plan Chickamauga * regional
transportation study . .

Golden Gate * shuttle system planning study . .

Great Smoky Mountains *

transportation planning study, phase II

.

Great Smoky Mountains *

transportation planning study, phase III

a Great Smoky Mountains *

transportation planning study, phase IV

a Keweenaw * Study of potential alternative transportation systems Mesa
Verde * transportation system planning study . . . .

National Capital * replacement of existing transportation system . .

Northeast Region * new traffic information services .

Construction projects

Acadia * new bus signs and construction changes to existing system

.

Cuyahoga Valley * construction of station shelters/ platforms .

Cuyahoga Valley* rehabilitation of railroad crossing signals .

Fire Island* construction of ferry terminal and support facilities Grand
Canyon* construction of park and ride facility . .

Grand Canyon* design and construction of light rail transportation system

. .

North Cascades* feasibility and design study of floating dock Santa
Monica* design and construction of shuttle system b Yosemite* development
of traffic information system c .

Yosemite* procurement of additional buses a To be completed in Phase II.

b Subsequent to project approval, this project was re- scoped into a
smaller project with a lower cost estimate. c The objective of this
construction project objective is a traffic management system with a small
construction component. Thus, although the proposal does not indicate that
non- construction alternatives were considered, the project itself could
be considered a non- construction alternative to building a transportation
system.

Page 8 GAO- 03- 166R National Park Service Alternative Transportation
Program

In the case of Mesa Verde, the proposed project was for an analysis of
transportation solutions to ease increasing vehicle congestion and visitor
safety concerns in the park. The proposal attempted to demonstrate the
need for the project by including both a discussion of a possible non-
construction alternative* a ticketing system that would redistribute
vehicles to less congested areas of the park during peak months* and a
plan to collect and analyze park visitor capacity data to identify and
quantify congestion issues throughout the park. In terms of project costs,
the proposal stated that cost estimates* including operations and
maintenance costs* would be developed for each alternative and that a
cost- benefit analysis would be completed that would show the most cost-
effective alternative. Including Mesa Verde, only 5 of the 20 project
proposals in our sample provided the information or plans to collect the
information on both need criteria* an analysis of non- construction
alternatives and capacity studies. In table 2, these five proposals are
those having .* s in the first two columns. Only the Mesa Verde project
addressed both cost criteria.

The reason park managers submit project proposals without this information
is because agency officials use a standard agencywide project application
process that does not differentiate between transportation projects and
other projects. The Park Service elected to use this process to allow park
managers the flexibility to describe how a project meets broad agencywide
objectives. However, the Park Service officials responsible for managing
the program recognize that in using this process, transportation related
proposals routinely lack the kind of key information that is required to
be developed and analyzed by park managers to demonstrate the need for
projects and whether they are cost- effective.

Until this kind of information is routinely provided to the Park Service
officials as they review, approve and prioritize proposed projects, the
agency cannot ensure that it is effective in selecting the most
meritorious projects. Park Service officials acknowledge these concerns
and told us they plan to enforce these data requirements for all projects
to be considered for funding in fiscal year 2004 and in later years.

Developing a Performance Evaluation System for Measuring Program Results
Would Improve Accountability and Decision- Making

The Park Service has established program objectives that support the
strategic goals of the agency, but it has not yet developed a system for
evaluating the performance of the Alternative Transportation Program in
meeting these objectives. Without such a process, it is difficult for the
agency to demonstrate if, and to what extent, the Alternative
Transportation Program and individual transportation projects are
accomplishing the desired results.

The Park Service has identified a number of objectives for the Alternative
Transportation Program. These objectives are broad and include such things
as enhancing visitor experience, preserving natural and cultural
resources, and improving or sustaining economic development opportunities,
as well as transportation- related objectives such as relieving traffic
and parking congestion, reducing air, noise, and visual pollution,
reducing or eliminating overflow parking, and improving safety conditions.
While these objectives provide needed intent and focus for the program,
there is no process for measuring the performance of the program, or
individual projects, in meeting these objectives. For example, a major
objective of the program is to improve the quality of visitor enjoyment by
relieving traffic and parking congestion in parks. However, because the
agency has not established performance goals for reducing such congestion
or identified how congestion will be measured, there is no effective means
of evaluating performance to determine what, if any, progress is being
made. In the absence of specific programmatic performance goals and
measures, evaluating the results of the program, and individual projects,
is based on the subjective judgments of program managers.

So far the Park Service has defined progress under the Alternative
Transportation Program by identifying various administrative activities
that have been completed during the first four years of the program.

Page 9 GAO- 03- 166R National Park Service Alternative Transportation
Program

These achievements have included such actions as completing a planning
guidebook, issuing transportation bulletins, organizing and conducting
training conferences, and developing a program plan. However, while these
kinds of administrative activities are important aspects of managing the
program, they do not identify what the program is accomplishing in terms
of meeting its objectives.

The lack of measurable performance goals and measures has two adverse
consequences. First, accountability is diminished because there is no
effective way to determine what is being accomplished with the funds
provided. Second, there is no effective means for providing agency
managers or Congress with assurance that the projects being funded are the
most effective in achieving the results desired for the program.

Developing performance goals and performance measures for assessing and
evaluating progress would enable the Park Service to better determine how
effectively program objectives are being met and could improve
accountability by setting performance targets for agency managers.
According to the Department of the Interior*s fiscal year 2003 budget
request, the department is seeking to redirect funds from lesser
performing programs to higher priority or more effective ones. Moving to a
performancebased approach to managing the program would be consistent with
this initiative. It would also be consistent with the best practices of
top- performing businesses and government agencies as well as the
administration*s objective of putting greater emphasis on performance-
based management.

Further, developing a performance- based process for managing the program
could also improve the ability of agency decision makers to evaluate
individual project proposals. By showing how their projects directly
contribute to measurable program goals, agency officials could improve the
project approval and prioritization process by more effectively assessing
the relative contributions of competing proposals.

Park Service officials are taking steps to develop and implement a more
effective performance evaluation system for the Alternative Transportation
Program. As part of this effort, the agency has developed plans for
collecting data that can be used to improve decision- making and form the
basis for developing program performance measures. In addition, according
to a Park Service official, the agency is examining transit system
performance measures used by external organizations that could be adopted
by the Park Service. The official stated that the agency plans to develop
guidance that will include performance information to assist park managers
with the development of appropriate performance objectives and measures.
However, this guidance will not be completed until the end of fiscal year
2003.

Conclusions

The Park Service can improve the administration of the Alternative
Transportation Program by strengthening its project approval and
prioritization process to ensure that proposed projects are needed and
cost- effective. To get this done, the Park Service needs to require park
managers to provide key information demonstrating the need and cost-
effectiveness of proposed projects when they are submitted to
headquarters. This should include an analysis of alternatives* including
alternatives that do not involve construction, an analysis of park
capacity data, cost estimates that include operations and maintenance
costs, and information showing that the proposed project is cost-
effective. Currently, this information is not routinely provided to agency
decision- makers responsible for approving and prioritizing proposed.
Providing this additional information would improve the effectiveness of
the Park Service*s decision- making process by ensuring that proposed
projects are needed and cost- effective solutions to valid transportation
problems.

Regardless of which projects are funded, the agency needs to develop an
effective means for evaluating the performance of the program so that
program and park managers are more accountable for what is being
accomplished with the funds provided. Today, the agency has no objective
means for making these

Page 10 GAO- 03- 166R National Park Service Alternative Transportation
Program

determinations. Performance evaluation* including the development of
performance goals and measures* is a critical component for measuring
progress and justifying continued program funding. Moreover, moving to a
performance- based evaluation process is consistent with the best
practices of topperforming businesses and government agencies as well as
with the administration*s objective of putting greater emphasis on
performance- based management.

The Park Service acknowledges that improvements are needed in both the
project approval process and in developing a performance- based management
and evaluation system for the program and has plans for implementing
improvements in each of these areas.

Recommendations for Executive Action

To strengthen the Park Service*s process for approving and prioritizing
alternative transportation projects and to better ensure that the
Alternative Transportation Program achieves its desired results, we
recommend that the Secretary of the Interior require the Director of the
National Park Service to:

 Implement the agency*s plans for requiring that each construction
project proposal submitted for headquarters approval include documentation
supporting the need for a proposed project * including an analysis of non-
construction alternatives and park capacity data. Similarly, planning
proposals should ensure that this kind of information is developed by
identifying plans for obtaining it.

 Implement the agency*s plans for requiring that each construction
project proposal submitted for headquarters approval include an analysis
supporting the project*s cost- effectiveness, including total project cost
estimates and anticipated annual operations and maintenance costs.
Similarly, planning proposals should ensure that this kind of information
is developed by identifying plans for obtaining it.

 Implement the agency*s plans for developing a performance evaluation
system, including the development of performance goals and measures, so
that there is an objective basis for determining whether the program and
individual projects are accomplishing the desired results.

Agency Comments

We discussed a draft of this report with Park Service officials who told
us they agree with our recommendations and are planning to implement them.
We also requested comments from the Department of the Interior, but none
were provided.

- - - - As agreed with your office, unless you announce the contents of
this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from
the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees, the House Committee on
Government Reform, and the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. We
will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the
report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http:// www.
gao. gov.

Page 11 GAO- 03- 166R National Park Service Alternative Transportation
Program

If you or your staffs have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-
3841, or Cliff Fowler, Assistant Director, at (202) 512- 8029. Key
contributors to this report are shown in enclosure III.

Barry T. Hill Director, Natural Resources and Environment

Enclosures

Enclosure I Page 12 GAO- 03- 166R National Park Service Alternative
Transportation Program

Scope and Methodology

To determine how the Park Service evaluates the need for and cost-
effectiveness of projects it approves under the Alternative Transportation
Program, we collected data on all project proposals approved for funding
from fiscal year 1999, the first year program funds were obligated,
through fiscal year 2003, the latest year for which projects have been
approved. During this period, the Park Service approved 185 planning and
construction projects proposed at 75 national parks and park units
nationwide. The agency provided data from its database of project
proposals detailing the number, estimated cost, location, and description
of proposed projects, as well as whether they were classified as planning
or construction projects, and whether they were approved and funded. For
those projects that had been approved, we gathered records about
programmed funding year and costs, obligated funds through fiscal year
2001, and estimated project costs through fiscal year 2003. We analyzed
this data to derive aggregate summary information such as the total number
of projects approved for funding, average costs of projects, and the range
of project costs. We reviewed agency policies, memoranda and directives,
administrative documents, and guidance included in calls for proposals,
and interviewed Park Service and Department of Transportation officials in
headquarters and regional offices, Park Service officials in national
parks, and national environmental organizations. In addition, we visited
four national parks that had transportation projects approved since the
inception of the program, and interviewed Park Service staff,
concessionaires, community members, local government officials, and
representatives of local organizations.

To determine how effectively the Park Service reviews and approves
transportation projects, we selected 20 approved projects for detailed
review from the fiscal year 2001 through 2003 project call. Our selected
projects represented 54 percent of the total estimated costs of $29. 8
million for all projects approved for the 3- year period. We included 10
planning projects and 10 construction projects to determine how the
approval process was completed for the different types of projects. For
planning

projects, we selected the 10 projects with the highest estimated costs.
Because the Park Service has an additional review process for construction
projects with estimated costs of $500,000 or more, we selected the five
highest- cost construction projects above this threshold, and the five
highest- cost construction projects below the threshold.

To determine how the Park Service evaluates the performance of the
Alternative Transportation Program, we examined previous reports on
performance evaluation completed by GAO and other organizations,
descriptions of Park Service objectives and Alternative Transportation
Program objectives, the fiscal year 2001 Park Service Annual Performance
Report and fiscal year 2003 Annual Performance Plan, the Alternative
Transportation Program Plan, Park Service policies and guidance related to
planning, a summary of program achievements to date, and a critique of the
program by an agency under the Department of Transportation. In addition,
we interviewed Park Service and Department of Transportation officials
about the process.

We conducted our work between June 2001 and June 2002, in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

Enclosure II Page 13 GAO- 03- 166R National Park Service Alternative
Transportation Program

Alternative Transportation Program Projects Approved Fiscal Year 1999*
Fiscal Year 2003

Planning projects Construction projects Total projects Fiscal Year Number
Dollars Number Dollars Number Dollars

1999 34 $2,941, 996 5 $4,964, 754 39 $7,906, 750 2000 40 4,533, 423 16
4,140, 097 56 8,673, 520 2001 33 4,296, 898 19 8,872, 044 52 13,168, 942
2002 14 2,307, 270 7 6, 092, 500 21 8,399, 770 2003 10 1,679, 200 7 6,
536, 600 17 8,215, 800

Total 131 $15,758, 787 54 $30,605, 995 185 $46,364, 782

Note: Project costs for fiscal years 1999 through 2000 are based on
obligations; project costs for fiscal year 2001 are based on obligations
and project estimates; and project costs for fiscal years 2002 and 2003
are based on project estimates.

Average cost of planning project = $120, 296 Median cost of planning
project = $75,000 Average cost of construction project = $566, 778 Median
cost of construction project = $419,050 Construction projects = 29.2
percent of all projects, but 66.0 percent of project funding. Source:
National Park Service files and GAO calculations.

Enclosure III Page 14 GAO- 03- 166R GAO- 03- 166R National Park Service
Alternative Transportation Program

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments GAO Contacts

Barry T. Hill (202) 512- 3841 Clifton Fowler (202) 512- 8029

Acknowledgments

In addition to those named above, Thomas Kingham, Arturio Holguin,
Christine Colburn, Donald Pless, and Cynthia Norris made key contributions
to this report.

(360105)
*** End of document. ***