You are here

Traffic Management Plan At Arches National Park Could Lead To $22 Million Drop In Spending

Share
Entrance traffic jam at Arches National Park/NPS

A proposal to require reservations at peak times for visitors to Arches National Park could lead to a substantial economic impact to the area, according to an economist/NPS file

If Arches National Park moves forward with a plan to require advance reservations for visitors, it could lead to an initial economic hit of as much as $22 million to the Moab, Utah, area, according to an economic analysis. That dollar figure is far from firm, the economist cautioned, and could be greatly reduced as people get used to whatever traffic management plan the park settles on.

At the same time, however, such a reservation system "may enhance visitor experience and increase the economic value of trips to" the national park, noted Robert Paterson, who works for Industrial Economics, Incorporated, out of Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Arches is one of a handful of national parks -- others include Yellowstone, Zion, Yosemite, Acadia, Grand Canyon, Glacier -- that struggle at times during the year with overcrowding. Zion officials have been working on their own management plan for some time, and it, too, includes provisions for reservations, though they might not be included in the final proposal.

Overcrowding can lead to natural resource impacts. In Zion Canyon, for instance, where there are roughly 13 miles of official trails, visitors going off trail have created another 30 miles of unofficial "social" trails. Complicating the planning process at Zion are concerns over how a visitation cap would impact area businesses.

“I think people realize that there are crowding problems, and would like to see some solutions to that," Superintendent Jeff Bradybaugh told the Traveler in December. "But there’s a great amount of concern that that could have negative economic impacts on the tourism industry. And we certainly are taking that into account and have those concerns as well."

As with their counterparts at Zion, officials at Arches have been trying to figure out how to manage visitors and protect park resources and values for some time. Back in November 2017 they released a draft plan that proposed reservations during peak visitation months. Such a plan is needed, they say, to address vehicle traffic and parking congestion problems that affect visitor access, visitor enjoyment, and resource conditions. 

Visitation to Arches National Park doubled in the past 11 years, reaching approximately 1.6 million visitors in 2016. During high-visitation season, March through October, visitors routinely wait in long lines to enter the park and then must search for empty parking spaces at all popular sites. Long lines to enter the park cause congestion at the intersection of U.S. 191 and the park entrance road, which can be a serious traffic hazard. 

The reservation proposal is viewed as a way to give visitors certainty of entry, reduce or eliminate long entrance lines, spread visitation more evenly across the day, and improve the visitor experience by ensuring available parking space.

But Paterson pointed to some uncertainties in reaching his conclusions over the economic fallout such a plan would create.

"(R)epresentatives from the International Inbound Travel Association Board have suggested that regardless of whether a system is implemented next year or not, there will likely be a reduction in foreign bus tours booked due to concerns about the system," the economist said in a report sent to the park last summer.

The report was just publicly identified by park officials last month when they announced plans for a public meeting this summer about the progress being made on the management plan. Paterson is expected to be at the meeting.

The economist acknowledged that his work so far could not predict the long-term impact to the area's economy. He predicated his estimate based on other national parks that used various approaches to deal with congestion.

"While they are all qualitatively different circumstances ... they may be similar in an economic sense in that they created uncertainty that in turn affected visitation," he wrote. "Based on these analyses, relevant literature, and professional judgment, it is my opinion that visitation to Arches may be reduced by 5 to 10 percent of what it otherwise would be during the first year that a system is implemented. ... Relying on (National Park Service) estimates of Arches visitor spending, this could result in a reduction in spending of $11 to $22 million relative to what otherwise would be predicted in that first year, which in turn could reduce overall output, employment, wages, and tax receipts through associated multipliers."

With that said, he added that after the first year of the reservation system commercial operators and individual park visitors would adapt to the system and "visitation would revert to what it would otherwise be under the system by year three."

But, reflecting the overall lack of rigorous economic analysis, was Paterson's comment that "(T)here are a number of important caveats and uncertainties associated with these estimates. Foremost is that they are based solely on existing data and information regarding imperfect analogies. In addition, they do not account for the potential to mitigate impacts through additional education and outreach regarding the proposed system."

Comments

We went to Arches in 2007 because I read an article that said it was one of the least crowded parks! But I can see why its crowded, it is absolutely beautriful. 


Add more pay stations to accommodate more visitors and prevent long lines.


Have a separate entrance stall just for Lifetime NP members and/or yearlong NP passes.


Ban foreign visitors if the National Parks are overcrowed. The National Parks are for the enjoyment of the American people. We don;t need hordes of foreigners overcrowding Parks that We the Peope support with our tax dollars. 


Bill, do you really think foreign visitors are the problem? And wouldn’t it be unAmerican to ban them, or anyone else?

I sense the day has come that the only solution is the same one employed across America: reservations. In the end, we’ll all be better off, as will the parks.


I do think that foreign visitors are a big part of the problem.  I don't think it's unAmerican to ban foreigners from any benefit that the American People enjoy that is payed for by our tax dollars.  I have read that Yeelowstone claims 13% of its visitors are foreign. It may be more than that in other Parks. Who knows?  Why should the American People have to share their Parks and pay to support Parks for foreign enjoyment?


Have two tiers of bisotors.  Yjose who only want drive by selfies.  Orhees who want to hike.   Control trail to landscape and delicate arch with permits


Totally agree our federal tax dollars pay for it . We ahould have access  to it over foreigners !


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.