You are here

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

Share

Published Date

March 4, 2019
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."

Related Stories:

Stories about:

Support National Parks Traveler

Your support for the National Parks Traveler comes at a time when news organizations are finding it hard, if not impossible, to stay in business. Traveler's work is vital. For nearly two decades we've provided essential coverage of national parks and protected areas. With the Trump administration’s determination to downsize the federal government, and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s approach to public lands focused on energy exploration, it’s clear the Traveler will have much to cover in the months and years ahead. We know of no other news organization that provides such broad coverage of national parks and protected areas on a daily basis. Your support is greatly appreciated.

 

EIN: 26-2378789

Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places

A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.

Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:

  • Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
  • Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
  • Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
  • North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
  • Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
  • Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
  • Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.

Comments

Bill Baehr:

The NPS already requiress ID when entering a pay area with a pass.  Banning foreigners could be easily enforced like any permit or licensee. If you get stopped you better be legal or you get a ticket or arrested. No need for checkpoints. When they get caught, punish them and make an example out of them. There is no perfect  enforcement system for any laws.  I don't care about Prince William or foreign dignitaries visiting; who needs them making it harder for The People to visit their Parks?. I don't kowtow to royalty or foreign dignitaries and neither should our Parks. Banning foreingers is a simpler system than reservations. You are making it sound complicated with ridiculous objections.  What's so obvious that our crowded parks don't need me? Is it because you don't like ny views?

Your views are silly and unworkable.  They're knee-jerk, xenophobic, and unrealistic.  Your proposal is more of a "show your papers" scheme that's generally illegal under the Fourth Amendment.  And again, who gets IDed?  Every passenger?  Even children?  Or can they get around your ban by bringing along a US citizen?

All parks too?  What about the National Mall?  A foreign visitor won't be able to attend a performance (or even perform) at Wolf Trap?  Can't visit the presidential memorials in DC?  USS Arizona Memorial?  Statue of Liberty?  There's irony for you.

And absolutely there are economic concerns.  It's up to you to decide that foreign tourist dollars are unimportant?  And the possibility that there may be reciprocity.  Whether or not you visit other countries, Americans do and enjoy similar parks around the world.

Besides that, it's not going to make much of a dent anyways.  A study of Yellowstone estimated about 17% of visitors were international.  And if international visitors are banned it's likely that more American visitors will decide to come and we're back where we started.  As well as a likelihood that foreign visitors decide to skip the US altogether.


"And if international visitors are banned it's likely that more American visitors will decide to come and we're back where we started."  You know it!  I'll take that problem and be glad to get a reservation if the overcrowding is from our People.  17% of 3  million visitors to Yellowstone is quite a dent, that's 510,000 people.  As long as there is not an overcrowding problem, I am fine with foreign visitors visiting Parks. I am not against foreigners visiting the US.  Foreigners just have to realize they are our guests and not entitled to our National Parks and need to behave according to our culture.   Should we cater to the Chinese and put in squat toilets so they don't stand on our toilets and defecate on the seat or break them?  How far to we need to go for foreigners in our National Parks? Maybe a better solution would be for foreigners to have to get reservations and limit their numbers?  This is all just brainstorming.  What's wrong with that? Something has to be done about the overcrowding and it make sense that foreigners should be elimanted before citizens have to suffer overcrowding  


OK.  Now we're getting somewhere.  The problem of foreign visitors behaving badly isn't isolated to those visiting the United States.  I'm certainly not for locking out visitors simply based on where they come from.

Our most popular national parks are recognized as highly desirable places to visit.  If they want to visit and tell their friends about it then more power to them.  In fact meeting foreign visitors has often been some of the best aspects I've experienced.

I know many people from China and have been to China.  I assure you that most people there know how to use a sit-down toilet.  I've been a guest in a middle class home and it even had American and Japanese branded toilets like Kohler or Toto.  It's a very small subset of visitors (although I've heard they've caused damage) that seem to find it puzzling.  Certainly European of Japanese visitors aren't going to treat a sit down toilet like a squat toilet.


Yellowstone is already catering to foreign squaters to avoid damage and filth on sit down toilets. So get ready to squat, it's healthier too.  https://www.wyomingpublicmedia.org/post/you-might-not-want-sit-down-squa...


"In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain."

 

That is one thing I dislike about the Donald Trumping of America. It normalizes the racist xenophobia that previously sat just under the skin, and was gradually eradicated. Now it is ok to be that way openly, which isn't ok, and my fear is that it will last longer.


Rick - people aren't trolls just because they disagree with you.  I don't agree with Bill but recognize that calling people names is no way to win an argument or change peoples' minds. 

 


Submitted by ecbuck on March 9, 2019 - 8:37am.

Rick - people aren't trolls just because they disagree with you.  I don't agree with Bill but recognize that calling people names is no way to win an argument or change peoples' minds. 

 

So why not practice what you preach?


OK, Anon, I'll bite.  Who and when have I every called names?

 


Donate Popup

The National Parks Traveler keeps you informed on how politics impact national parks and protected areas.

Become a sustaining member.

INN Member

The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.

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

You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

FREE for iPhones and Android phones.