Integrating Tourism and Recreation Travel with Transportation Planning and Project Delivery (2004)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

14 CHAPTER THREE CURRENT STATE OF PRACTICE: SURVEY RESULTS AND CASE STUDIES This chapter describes results of a survey of state and re- gional agencies and additional case studies illustrating the current state of practice for integrating tourism and recrea- tion travel with transportation planning and project deliv- ery. It is organized around four major elements of the cur- rent state of practice: (1) forms of agency involvement, (2) approaches to multi-agency coordination, (3) types of needs analysis for tourism- and recreation-related transpor- tation, and (4) innovative types of projects designed to ad- dress those needs. FORMS OF AGENCY INVOLVEMENT Types of Agencies A variety of federal, state, and local government agencies, as well as private organizations, can become involved in issues regarding tourism and recreation travel. Most com- monly, state and regional transportation planning agencies take the lead in identifying travel issues and needs for all travel segments, including tourism- and recreation-related travel, working in consultation with other public- and pri- vate-sector organizations that focus on tourism and recrea- tional development. The various types of organizations, along with the typical nature of their involvement in this topic area, are summarized here. • State DOTs typically have the authority for planning, funding, and implementing transportation projects, regardless of whether they also involve tourism or recreation. This can include the state DOT divisions or offices responsible for public transportation, highways, water ports, airports, and passenger rail facilities. They can include the staff groups responsi- ble for infrastructure project planning, capital financ- ing, project construction, and facilities operations. They can also include state DOT functions responsi- ble for traveler information brochures, signage, rest areas, and assistance services. Because tourism and recreation travel is a market segment of all travel, es- sentially all state DOTs are involved at some level in planning for this market segment. • State tourism offices typically have authority for planning, funding, and implementing tourism adver- tising, tourism information materials and assistance services, and operational coordination of tourism events and promotions. Because the primary objec- tive of these agencies is to attract visitors from out- side the state, many states have placed tourism pro- motion office operations within the state commerce or economic development departments. These agen- cies are most often involved in planning for tourism and recreation travel insofar as there are needs or concerns to ensure reasonable capacity, cost, and level of service to successfully promote the state as a place to visit. • State parks and recreation offices typically have au- thority for planning, funding, and implementing the acquisition, maintenance, and operation of state- owned parks, forests, other natural resources, and recreational properties. The agency names differ from state to state (e.g., Department of Natural Resources or Department of Fish and Wildlife); however, these basic functions exist in all states. These agencies are most often involved in planning for tourism and rec- reation travel that is associated with access to, park- ing cost at, and information services for, visitors to specific state-owned properties. • MPOs are organizations responsible for planning, programming, and coordinating federal highway and transit investments within major urban areas. They are formally designated under U.S. federal highway and transit statutes to coordinate planning of trans- portation improvement plans. As such, they play a role in the planning and coordination of local road and transit funding projects, which may also serve local tourism and recreation travel needs. However, planning and implementation of larger tourism and travel projects that are of statewide significance (ex- tending beyond the jurisdiction of the MPO) may remain the ultimate responsibility of the state DOT. Some MPOs also function as RPAs. Additional au- thority and responsibility may be granted to an MPO through state legislation. • RPAs are typically land-use planning and economic development agencies serving county or multicounty rural and urban regions. These agencies may become involved in promoting the development of tourism activities and recreation projects because tourism growth can be an element of a broader economic de- velopment strategy and may also have land-use im- plications. Furthermore, those RPAs that are also MPOs can be involved in prioritizing and approving highway and transit services that can affect tourism and recreation travel. • Local agencies involved in tourism and recreation planning are drawn from the public, private, and

15 nonprofit sectors. Participation at this level includes local government agencies, civic or trade associa- tions, private industry groups, and foundations. Pri- vate groups often involved in tourism development include local chambers of commerce and local con- vention and visitor bureaus. These groups are most often involved in promoting local tourism and plan- ning local recreation projects, although they are sel- dom the sources of funding or implementation. • Federal agencies involved in the planning and fund- ing of tourism and recreation transportation projects include the U.S.DOT (for federal funding of high- way, transit, aviation, and water transportation pro- jects), the U.S. Department of the Interior (for na- tional parks, fish and wildlife preserves, and federal land management), and the U.S. Department of Agri- culture (for national forests). These groups coordi- nate to address transportation issues concerning ac- cess to and within federal lands. A major issue for this study is the interaction of trans- portation agencies with other (tourism- and recreation- related) public agencies. Accordingly, this synthesis study included a survey that covered state transportation depart- ments and also encouraged responses from representatives of state tourism/parks departments and regional agencies. (The survey distribution methodology is described in chap- ter one.) A total of 41 responses were received, as shown in Table 1. The responses came from 32 states, representing a cross section of the United States (11 western states, 5 cen- tral states, 9 southeastern states, and 7 northeastern states). As with all agency surveys, there is a possibility of “self- selection” among responders—that those agencies re- sponding may be those most interested in the topic. To the extent that this has occurred, the responses can be seen as providing insight into some of the more active agencies and relevant model processes for addressing tourism and recreation travel. TABLE 1 S URVEY RESPONSES Category of Responder Surveys Completed State Transportation Department 27 State Tourism or Parks Department 7 Metropolitan or Regional Agency* 7 Total 41 *Includes metropolitan and regional planning and development organizations responding to paper or e-mail newsletter announcements by the National As- sociation of Regional Councils, Association of Metropolitan Planning Or- ganizations, and National Association of Development Officials. In addition, a regional office of the Federal Land Highway Program also participated. Survey Results: Agency Priorities for Transportation and Tourism Planning Tourism is an issue of interest for many types of agen- cies—not only tourism and parks departments, but also for state DOTs and RPAs. Key issues of interest to the sur- veyed agencies (i.e., those reported by at least 15% of the respondents) are as follows: • Among the state transportation departments, the key area of focus for planning is transportation; secon- dary concerns are, in order of importance, economic development, and land use and tourism (tied). • Among the state tourism and parks departments, the key area of focus for planning is tourism and recrea- tion; secondary concerns are, in order of importance, economic development, and land use and transporta- tion (tied). • Among the RPAs, the key area of focus for planning is also transportation. The secondary concerns are, in order of importance, land use, and tourism and eco- nomic development (tied). Not surprisingly, the survey confirmed that tourism is recognized as a secondary interest among many transporta- tion agencies, whereas transportation is recognized as a secondary interest among many tourism agencies. How- ever, that does not change another finding—that both types of agencies see a similar set of joint interests. As shown in Figure 1, the issues that were cited as joint interests by a majority of the responding transportation and tour- ism/recreation agencies are traveler information services, welcome centers, access routes, scenic byways, tourism signage, congestion, transportation infrastructure quality, road safety, tourism facilities/attraction development, road design, and regional promotion. These findings confirm the wide range of common in- terests spanning transportation and tourism planning and also indicate that differences in institutional mandates are also a factor. The most notable differences are that state DOTs are more likely to see road design and safety as is- sues high on their list of joint interests, and less likely to put tourism promotion high on that list. It is also notable that access and tourism facilities appear to be the two areas of high interest with the smallest differential in interest among the two types of agencies—indicating a potential for converging interests. Agencies were also asked to cite which of these issues are now being actively considered. Figure 2 shows that, in practice, the responding state DOTs are most likely to be considering issues of road design, access, and signage. In contrast, other agencies (i.e., tourism, parks, and regional planning organizations) are more likely to be considering issues such as tourism promotion, scenic byways, and wel- come centers. These findings generally confirm that there is common recognition of a broad range of joint issues spanning tour- ism and transportation planning, although the extent and

16 frequency of these concerns differs depending on the pri- mary focus of the agency. That different types of agencies have different perspectives and priorities reinforces the importance of interagency coordination. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% To uri sm P rom oti on Ro ad D es ign To uri sm Fa cili tie s Ro ad Sa fet y Tra ns In fra Q ua lity Tra ffic C on ge sti on Ac ce ss to A ttra cti on s To uri sm Si gn ag e Sc en ic By wa ys We lco me C en ter Tra ve ler In fo Sy ste m State DOT Other Agencies FIGURE 1 Issues of joint interest for transportation and tourism planning. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% To uri sm P rom oti on Ro ad D es ign To uri sm Fa cil itie s Ro ad Sa fet y Tr an s I nfr a Q ua lity Tr aff ic Co ng es tio n Ac ce ss to A ttra cti on s To uri sm S ign ag e Sc en ic By wa ys W elc om e C en ter Tr av ele r In fo Sy ste m State DOT Other Agencies FIGURE 2 Frequency of issues being considered.

17 Case Studies: State Transportation Directives Supporting Tourism The survey responses (as previously shown in Figures 1 and 2) demonstrated that state transportation departments have interest in a wide range of issues and activities rele- vant to tourism planning and development. The case stud- ies of the Wisconsin DOT (WisDOT) and New Jersey DOT (NJDOT) represent examples of state transportation plan- ning directives that explicitly and directly involve the state DOT in tourism support. Case Study of State DOT Support for Tourism: Wisconsin’s State Highway Plan In the process of developing its long-range plan for the state’s highway system, WisDOT sought to guide the rec- ommendations for future investment based on the under- standing of how Wisconsin’s economic growth is affected by the current highway system; what transportation re- sources will be needed to accommodate future, projected growth; and how economic growth affects the transporta- tion system. The resulting long-range plan for the state’s highways defines system-level goals, priorities, perform- ance measures, and investment strategies. The highway plan is shaped by an explicit goal to “pro- vide [a] system supportive of economic needs of various state sectors, including tourism and Wisconsin’s communi- ties . . .” It includes objectives to increase out-of-state visi- tors; provide transportation improvements that enhance development opportunities for communities; reduce travel time; and increase reliability, security, and convenience of all travelers on the state’s highways. To accomplish a plan based on this vision, WisDOT formed eight subcommittees on specific topics (e.g., con- gestion, safety, bridges, pavement, and economic develop- ment). Each committee developed low–medium–high per- formance standards for the infrastructure linked to their topic area. Although some committees adhered to strict en- gineering–design concepts in evaluating performance, the economic development committee applied a broader set of criteria; that is, how various Wisconsin economic activi- ties, such as tourism, affect highway performance. A sur- vey of visitors traveling to Wisconsin by car indicated that the lack of congestion on the state’s highways was a key positive factor. One outcome of this process is the DOT’s high-priority commitment to highway maintenance and rehabilitation to promote the state’s tourism industry. Five specific tourism recommendations have been defined for WisDOT planning practices (Economic Development and the State Trunk Highway System 1998): 1. Provide attractive and adequate bridge infrastructure design and aesthetics; that is, lighting and design, and shoulder and sidewalk design for bikes, pedestrians, and snowmobiles. 2. Improve market-related linkages between tourists and destinations. 3. Establish working relationship with industries, busi- nesses, chambers of commerce, municipalities, and local development organizations to better understand transportation-related economic development issues and address these issues through the planning process. 4. Provide planning coordination and technical assis- tance to municipalities, business associations, and lo- cal and regional planning organizations for the de- velopment and implementation of land-use plans for economic development projects. 5. Identify and forecast economic activity on or near the highway transportation corridor for district offices, municipalities, planners, and economic development organizations. Case Study of State DOT Support for Tourism: New Jersey’s Long-Range Plan Update The NJDOT’s “Transportation Choices: 2025 Long-Range Plan Update” (2001) articulated an explicit goal of New Jersey’s transportation planning activities: “to promote economic development vis a vis stimulating tourism.” The plan provides for NJDOT to rate the state’s trans- portation system performance with predefined metrics to gauge how specific goals and desired outcomes are being ful- filled. A goal to promote economic development uses the met- ric of the number of dollars and projects that support tourism. The plan update also articulates another NJDOT goal, consis- tent with the Governor’s Vision and the State Development– Redevelopment Plan—to continue to implement a program of demonstration grants for eco-tourism. A travel–tourism issue group exists within the DOT to provide specific focus on the New Jersey shore and south Jersey. Recent projects identified included the following: • Summer recreational transit system with park-n-ride lots and jitneys (see case study under ‘“Data Analysis and Evaluation” for Gateway National Recreation Area); • Shuttle connection between Atlantic City, rail station, and airport; • Improved signage—aesthetics and content; • More welcome centers offering alternative routings and real-time information; • More promotion of existing interstate bus service; and • Bike lanes for intracity trips.

18 Critical areas identified for recreation travel statewide included: • Data collection and modeling techniques to be adapted; • Corridor plans, typically developed using journey-to- work data, to be revised; • DOT should proactively tie transportation improve- ment program (TIP) to opportunities to bring new tourism and recreation attractions to areas that have few other viable economic options; and • More efficient management of existing transportation resources in areas such as Cape May and Atlantic City, where there is little room to build extra capac- ity. The scenic byway program is an emerging initiative for the NJDOT. The program is structured with an interde- partmental steering committee to ensure that the state’s de- velopment and conservation objectives, as well as trans- portation requirements, are integrated with scenic byway development. FORMS OF MULTI-AGENCY COORDINATION Classification of Coordination Relationships Active multi-agency working relationships, spanning tour- ism and transportation agencies, are becoming common. All state and regional agencies responding to the survey reported that they have some working relationship with other agencies regarding tourism and transportation issues. Fully two-thirds reported that there is some type of formal structure to their collaboration. The nature of these formal collaborations varies, but can be classified into three stages in the development and maturation of interagency working relationships. • Category 1—initial relationships that represent ad hoc or project-specific coordination; • Category 2—developing relationships that represent formal interagency working structures, although the coordination may actually be infrequent or low level; and • Category 3—maturation of relationships in which there are formal, ongoing, and/or continuous proc- esses for interagency coordination. Survey results indicated that most cases still fall into the first category, although the second and third categories illustrate the path toward development of deeper and stronger coordination processes. Overall, 64% of the re- spondents reported coordination on a project-specific or ad hoc basis for specific situations (Category 1). The remain- ing respondents reported that they have been formally in- volved in broader interagency coordination of goals and programs, although they were evenly split between those that have meetings or other coordination activities on an infrequent basis (Category 2) and those that have an ongo- ing and/or continuous process for coordinating transporta- tion planning and tourism planning (Category 3). These findings hold for both transportation and tourism and rec- reation agencies at state and regional levels. The surveyed agencies reported a wide range of inter- agency cooperation arrangements among various combina- tions of stakeholders, including state agencies (transporta- tion departments, tourism organizations, and parks departments), federal agencies (U.S.DOT, NPS, and BLM), regional organizations (MPO or RPA), and local private- sector organizations (chambers of commerce, etc.). The leadership role was reported to be most frequently in the hands of the state transportation department or the state tourism or parks department. The DOTs were most likely to have the funding and hence have veto power over deci- sion making. RPAs, chambers of commerce, and private- sector organizations were most likely to play supporting, advisory roles. Although all of the state transportation agencies re- ported some involvement in tourism and recreation travel planning, their roles vary from state to state. For example, state DOTs reported playing an advisory role in tourism planning in Kentucky, Oregon, and Vermont, whereas states such as Colorado take a more formal lead role in tourism travel planning. In the District of Columbia and West Virginia the DOT also assumes the lead in identifying transportation resource needs associated with future expec- tations for tourism–travel growth. There is more evenly shared leadership in tourism–travel planning among state transportation and tourism agencies in Maine and Vermont, whereas WisDOT shares the function of tourism–travel planning with the state tourism agency and also MPOs. The Pennsylvania DOT (PennDOT) also teams with MPOs and chambers of commerce to address these issues, whereas the Kentucky DOT shares this function with seven MPOs in urban areas and area development districts in nonurban areas. A private-sector group takes the lead in monitoring future tourism–travel potential in Georgia. In Florida, the DOT (FDOT) partners with other state agen- cies to support economic development, including tourism, in rural areas through the Rural Economic Development Initiative. FDOT has contributed by installing logo and guide signs pertaining to historic and eco-heritage sites. Areas where FDOT assumes the lead in defining relevant policy pertain to outdoor advertising, signage for the state highway system, and the Logo Sign Program. FDOT is in- volved with each phase of a tourism–travel-related project, from funding to planning and design to implementation and construction. The ongoing operation

19 FIGURE 3 State DOT implementation of multi-agency collaboration elements (percentage of respondents reporting that each element is now in-place or underway). of a complete tourism–travel facility/service is often shared with “VisitFlorida,” the official tourism marketing corpora- tion of Florida. Elements of Successful Collaboration An earlier study, NCHRP Report 419: Tourism Travel and Transportation System Development (Frechtling et al. 1998), identified 13 elements deemed crucial to the success of multi-agency coordination on the tourism–travel– transportation planning front (see Figure 3). Some of these elements pertain to state DOTs, some speak to other state agencies, and others apply to the broader set of relevant stakeholders in the collaboration process. The survey revis- ited these recommended elements 4 years later to gauge the extent to which DOTs and other stakeholder organizations have put these recommendations into effect. It shows that some of these elements have been put into place (or are be- ing implemented) by a majority of the responding state DOTs. They are (ranked in order of frequency): (1) the ability to factor in and use tourism data, (2) application of ITS strategies, (3) collaboration with the tourism industry in traveler information systems, (4) working understand- ings between the DOT and the state tourism office, and (5) a track record of some successful project collabora- tions. States such as Montana, West Virginia, and Wisconsin stand out as models that have almost all of these elements al- ready in place. A much broader set of state DOTs have already implemented at least some of these elements, including • Formal policy statements recognizing tourism as an important benefit of transportation investment, in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. • Tourism benefits included in state DOT standard op- erating procedures for planning, project development, design, and maintenance, in Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

20 • Institutional mechanisms to direct tourism industry input into state DOT activities, in the District of Co- lumbia, Florida, Montana, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. • State DOT processes to incorporate key tourism data in Montana, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, West Vir- ginia, and Wisconsin. • State DOT implementation strategies for applying ITS for visitor information in Florida, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Other states currently working on strategies for ITS imple- mentation include Maine, Mississippi, North Dakota, Tennessee, and Virginia. The ability to draw on an established record of success- ful collaboration in developing tourism-serving transporta- tion projects is another element in the joint planning proc- ess that many states attested to in their survey responses. This included the transportation departments in Arkansas, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida, Maine, Montana, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, and West Virginia. Additional collaborations were reported by the tourism offices and commerce de- partments of states including Alaska, Illinois, and Mon- tana. The range of ways in which multiple agencies can coordinate to address transportation and tourism or recreation needs is described here in four detailed case studies, illustrating both broad ongoing processes and specific targeted efforts. These are followed by brief descriptions of 13 other relevant examples on multi-agency coordination. Each of these examples reinforces the study finding that a critical element of successful interagency coordination is to establish a formal process to develop, guide, and maintain that coordination. Case Study of Multi-Agency Coordination: Montana Tourism Recreation Initiative (MTRI) The MTRI was formed in December 2000 by the Montana governor’s office. It represents a multi-agency cooperative agreement bound by an MOU between 12 state and 6 fed- eral agencies. The participating agencies were Commerce; Transportation; Fish, Wildlife, and Parks; Governor’s Of- fice; Natural Resources and Conservation; Historical Soci- ety; Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Commission; Montana State University Extension; Tourism Advisory Council; University of Montana—Institute for Tourism and Recrea- tion Research; Montana Heritage Preservation and Devel- opment Commission; and the Montana Arts Council (joined spring 2002). The participating federal agencies were BLM, Bureau of Reclamation, NPS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The means to achieving its mandate as stated in the MOU is “by sharing information and combining time, funding, and other resources, MTRI provides a vehicle for coordinated government sector projects.” The MOU sets out a structure to guide the activities undertaken by the MTRI. The Montana Department of Commerce’s Travel Promotion Division administers the initiative. Management of project-specific tasks will be arranged through assis- tance agreements or, if need be, separate contracts when the transfer of funds, services, or property is involved be- tween agencies. Participation is predominantly staff from state and federal organizations. Local government and pri- vate-sector interests will be invited on a project-by-project basis or if an interest is expressed and a commitment dem- onstrated. The four areas of focus are (1) resource protec- tion and enhancement, (2) public information, (3) communications, and (4) planning. The communications element is a commitment to inter- agency training and education programs associated with cultural and natural resources management, public rela- tions, tourism promotion, and other topics, and is open to employees from each member agency. It states that MTRI will work on the development of an interagency network system to share reports, memos, data, and other informa- tion vital to the collaboration. In addition to the formal in- teraction, participating parties report that some of the best successes for tourism in transportation planning implemen- tation have been the result of more frequent informal communications between agency staffs. Case Study of Multi-Agency Cooperation: Washington, D.C., Greenways The National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board (TPB) is the federally designated MPO for the Washington, D.C., region and is staffed by the Metropoli- tan Washington Council of Governments. It undertook a planning process to address two important but overlooked aspects of the TPB’s 1998 visioning policy. The result of this successful planning process is documented in the TPB’s report “Priorities 2000,” which describes the final selection of greenways and circulation system projects that were later endorsed by the TPB board. Although these pro- jects primarily focus on improving the livability of communities (improving commuter access and quality of life for area residents), the process involved to address which greenways and circulation projects would be viable for the TPB to implement over the next few years was so successful that the organization is now using it as a model on other planning issues. The planning process was funded through a matching grant from the FHWA for Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot Programs and local funds.

21 Part of the funding was set aside for an evaluation of how the planning process performed. The process followed four steps: (1) adopt a project-focused approach and draw on existing project ideas, (2) involve elected officials, (3) al- low stakeholders to steer the project selection process, and (4) develop a well-designed final product. The involvement of elected officials was considered to be significant because it imparts an importance to, and increases participation in, committee meetings. A clear set of objectives, a process that was easy to understand and manage, and a rea- sonable commitment for participation (four 2-h lunch-time meetings) made committee participation successful. Stakeholder committees were formed for the greenways and circulation system planning. Each of these committees was chaired by a TPB board member and included 20 stakeholders from the region, comprised of elected officials and other agency representatives from planning, transpor- tation, public works, advocacy groups, citizens’ groups, and the business association. Although MPOs have often been involved with advocating regional policy, the TPB’s process has been seen as a success in regional implementa- tion (“An Evaluation of . . .” 2001). Case Study of Project-Oriented Multi-Agency Cooperation: SAFECO Field Transportation Management Plan SAFECO Field opened in 1999 as the new home for the Seattle Mariners baseball franchise. Seating capacity was set for 45,000, which was deemed to be the optimal size by current ballpark design standards and would serve to cap demand throughout the season. Replacing the Kingdome, which experienced wide swings in attendance at its 65,000 seat facility, SAFECO Field has sold out for its first 3 years and has had more traffic impacts than originally an- ticipated. Although the Washington State Department of Conservation and Land Use granted the Master Use Permit allowing for development of the facility, the Seattle DOT stipulated that the developer and franchise must produce an annual transportation management plan (TMP) to achieve a desired outcome pertaining to the number of vehicles per 1,000 attendees (not to exceed 3,000 vehicles per 10,000 attendees). Traffic in excess of this target would require the franchise to subsidize bus service to and from the ballpark. The TMP must also address transportation issues around scheduled special events at SAFECO Field. A Parking and Access Review Committee was formed at the start of operations, comprised of stadium officials, city police, the Seattle DOT, and citizen’s councils, to re- view and authorize, at monthly meetings, the proposed TMP, monitor its progress, and handle issues regarding special events. Because the Seattle DOT is aware that catastrophic congestion can result if a day game ends dur- ing the peak evening commute, the DOT also regulates the number of day games the Mariners can play at home (6 games) and the starting times of those games. Transportation management strategies in the current plan include • Information resources and attendee education (park- ing guide, call center, web page, neighborhood commu- nications, port communications, and other publicity), • Pedestrian improvements (pedestrian connections and railroad crossing), • High-occupancy vehicle incentives, • Transit service (with MetroTransit and Sounder Transit), • Bicycle facilities, • Parking management (on- and off-site and passenger loading zones), • Traffic flow improvements (traffic control, signals, and signage), • Event management, and • Evaluation techniques (attendee survey). Analysis supporting the plan’s management strategies includes game ingress and egress trip distribution, and pedestrian flows. The current TMP is the Mariner’s fifth such plan (valid for March 2003 to March 2004). It is updated by the Mari- ner’s director of transportation. All prior plans have been successful in meeting goals set for vehicles/thousand at- tendees. The current plan must factor in temporary disrup- tions in stadium access related to Washington State DOT construction. It also is poised to address how other modal developments (ferry holding project, potential cutbacks in public transit) and private development in the adjacent neighborhoods add to congestion and affect access to the ballpark. The plan states that “the long-term goal of the transportation planning process is to change public behav- iors in anticipation of the changes that are already in proc- ess or in planning to lessen the traffic impacts associated with stadium attendees.” Case Study of Multi-Agency Cooperation: New Hampshire’s Route 16 Corridor The Route 16 corridor is a congested mountain route serv- ing a concentration of ski and summer resorts, outlet shop- ping, and related centers of restaurant and retail activity. In response to a corridor protection plan developed by the New Hampshire DOT in 1999, a multijurisdictional effort was created to address local concerns pertaining to some of the projects in the STIP. These concerns focused on land- use, safety, and capacity issues for three towns. These towns, Albany, Madison, and Tamworth, along with the Lake Region Planning Council, the North Country Coun-

22 cil, and New Hampshire DOT representatives worked on a public participation process to establish consensus and provide meaningful recommendations to how the Route 16 projects should proceed. This regional undertaking was funded and supported by the New Hampshire DOT, U.S.DOT, FHWA, and the two local planning councils. Other Examples of Ongoing and Continuous Interagency Coordination • The North Dakota DOT has an integrated and con- tinuous process working together with the U.S.DOT, state tourism office, state game and fish department, and the state historical society. • PennDOT has an integrated and continuous process working together with the U.S.DOT, U.S. Park Ser- vice, state tourism office, state department of parks, and various regional agencies serving tourism inter- ests (such as the Route 6 Association). • Alaska’s Office of Tourism shares a lead role with the state DOT in defining relevant policy, project imple- mentation, and facility operations concerning tourism travel issues. The Alaska DOT leads in areas con- cerning funding and planning and design. • The Oregon DOT developed a Scenic Byways Pro- gram with a broad base of partnering down to the city and county level through the Association of Oregon Counties and the League of Oregon Cities. This is in addition to working with the U.S.DOT, BLM, state tourism office, and state convention and visitors bu- reau. • The District of Columbia DOT has a key tourism stakeholder group that meets monthly or more fre- quently as projects and issues arise. This group in- volves the National Capital Planning Commission, Downtown Business Improvement District, District of Columbia Office of Planning, Heritage Council of D.C., Washington Convention and Tourism Corpora- tion, and District of Columbia Chamber of Com- merce. A larger stakeholders group including corpo- rate members is also informed of progress and needs defined within the tourism stakeholder group at criti- cal points in project planning. • The South Jersey Transportation Planning Organiza- tion has an integrated and continuous process work- ing together with the state DOT, U.S.DOT, New Jer- sey Chamber of Commerce, and private-sector groups. • The Federal Lands Highway Program’s (FLHP) western office has a formal, policy-mandated process to guide its interactions with other tourism–recreation and transportation entities including state depart- ments of parks, state tourism offices, U.S.DOT, NPS, BLM, U.S. Forest Service, and regional agencies. The FLHP TIP must be integrated into the TIPs of MPOs and state DOTs within the FLHP’s regional of- fice jurisdiction. Other Examples of Project-Driven Interagency Coordination • The Clapstop Shuttle System, serving Glacier Na- tional Park, was developed by joint efforts of the FLHP’s western office, Glacier National Park, and the Sun Road Steering Committee. • In late 2000, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Depart- ment and the Texas DOT developed an MOU with the state department of economic development, state commission on the arts, and state historical commis- sion. The agreement is to cooperate and coordinate in the marketing and promotion of Texas as a premier travel destination and to provide services to travelers. The MOU specifically assigns the operation and funding of visitor information centers and the prime responsibility for the fulfillment of consumer travel literature requests to the Texas DOT. • The New Hampshire Travel and Tourism Department has a defined process for bringing together relevant groups on a project-specific basis. This includes the U.S.DOT, state DOT, regional agencies including the chamber of commerce, planning commissions, local tourism offices, BLM, state parks department, Rails and Trails, Granite State Ambassadors (a nonprofit visitor information training group), New Hampshire Forests and Lands, New Hampshire Department of Agriculture, New Hampshire Cultural Resources, and New Hampshire Cultural Byways. • The Coastal Georgia Regional Development Center in establishing the Tri-State Rural Corridor created an in- novative planning process to be undertaken by agencies and interests in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. It required the cooperation and coordination of goals and efforts involving private-sector groups, chambers of commerce, state DOTs, state tourism offices, and RPAs. • The New Hampshire Division of Travel and Tourism, Maine DOT, and Vermont Agency for Transportation also worked together on the “TRIO,” a tri-state ITS program. • Other examples of multi-agency coordination are provided by detailed case studies of Acadia National Park in Maine and Red Rocks State Park in Arizona, which are presented in the discussion of project solu- tions at the end of this chapter. Funding Priorities Approximately two-thirds (64%) of the agencies respond- ing to the survey reported that tourism and recreation are currently of major importance for the state economy. That

23 motivation supports the case for funding tourism transpor- tation, and often there are clear guidelines for the evalua- tion of spending on tourism-serving projects. Among the surveyed state transportation departments, nearly one-half (48%) reported that they evaluated proposed projects on a case-by-case basis, whereas 43% reported that they had “informal” guidelines, and 9% (including Alaska and Wis- consin) reported that they had formally mandated guide- lines. Many other state DOTs have funds set aside for sce- nic byways, welcome centers, and traveler information centers (see preceding case study of WisDOT). Surveyed organizations were also asked to provide ex- amples of tourism–travel-related projects (completed or in progress) and the types of funding involved. The results, obtained for 61 projects, show a great range of project types and funding combinations. The most commonly re- ported projects in this sample are welcome centers, visitor information centers, highways, and scenic byways. Except for visitor information and welcome centers, more than two-thirds of the projects were funded entirely or partially with federal TEA-21 money. These included most of the highway, scenic byway, recreation trails, transit, signage, and infrastructure projects. The projects that relied heavily on state and local funding (rather than federal funding) were visitor information and welcome centers. Many individual projects involve the combinations of funds from a variety of sources, including federal, state, local, and the private-sector. The following are examples of funding packages for specific projects that combined a va- riety of these sources. • Alaska Office of Tourism—Two trails projects, the Copper River Trail and the Southeast Alaska Trail System, used funding sources, including TEA-21 and other federal sources, and state, local, private-sector, and grant funding. • California DOT—The state legislature requires that 25% of DOT funding go toward the interregional and statewide movement of people and goods, including recreational travel. • Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council— Lake George Traffic Management Strategies relied on funding from TEA-21 and local government sources. • Coastal Georgia Regional Development Center—Tri- State Rural Corridor US-17/SR A1A relied on Eco- nomic Development Administration (EDA) funding for planning and implementation. • Virginia I-81 511 ITS implementation—VDOT part- nered with Virginia Tech’s state-funded Transporta- tion Institute, Shenandoah Telecomm, and the state police. • District of Columbia DOT—Combined TEA-21 and local government funds for a variety of projects in- cluding heritage trail development, transit support, signage, and streetscape improvement. • Funding for other projects that also involved multiple funding sources, such as Acadia National Park’s Is- land Explorer regional transit system, are discussed later in this chapter. DATA ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION The use of tourism-related travel data is one reflection of the way in which transportation planners can incorporate tourism issues into their forecasting, planning, prioritiza- tion, and design processes. State DOTs and other agencies were asked about the nature of their tourism travel data, how they use it, what limitations exist in the data, and what kind of additional data would be most useful to obtain. Overall, 42% of the state DOTS and 54% of the other agencies reported that they regularly make use of tourism travel forecasts. Among the state DOTs that do make use of tourism forecasts, the dominant use is for transportation planning. Among other agencies, the dominant use is for tourism marketing. State DOTs were asked about the specific types of cur- rent tourism data that they use in their agency’s planning activities and their assessment of the quality of currently available data. The survey results, shown in Table 2, con- firm the broad use of tourism data, but also the need for more complete data. The most widely requested forms of additional data are tourism origin–destination patterns, fol- lowed by tourism visitor traffic counts and tourism indus- try employment data. Several state DOTs also cited needs for seasonal adjustments and finer geographic breakdowns in tourism projections. Three case studies illustrate the application of tourism data in transportation needs forecasting and analysis. Addi- tional applications of tourism data analysis for program planning and evaluation are then also briefly described for four additional states. Case Study of Data Analysis: Utah DOT Transportation Modeling for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games To prepare the Park City, Utah, area for the influx of visi- tors to the Winter Olympic Games, the Utah DOT and the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee commissioned an analysis of the existing transportation system. Of interest was determining the extent of potential congestion to all users of a single critical corridor running between Salt Lake City and Park City—the segment of I-80 eastbound between I-215 and US-40. This corridor has several physi- cal road characteristics that combined with the current mix of commercial vehicles and the anticipated 30,000 to

24 TABLE 2 AVAILABILITY AND QUALITY OF TOURISM DATA USED BY TRANSPORTATION AGENCY State DOTs reporting that available tourism data are: Type of Data Complete (%) Partial (%) Unavailable (%) Total (%) Tourists entering/leaving the state 25 45 30 100 O–D patterns 5 65 30 100 Visits to recreation sites 11 67 22 100 Tourism—sales by region 21 37 42 100 Tourism—fees (tolls, entrance fees) 11 44 44 100 Tourism—related employment 16 58 26 100 Notes: O–D = origin–destination. (Source: Responses to survey of state transportation departments.) 50,000 Olympics spectators traveling the route, made de- sign of travel demand management strategies imperative. The analysis used the CORSIM travel forecasting simu- lation model and required that model inputs be developed specifying Olympics-related peak-period traffic volumes. Assumptions were also shaped to address arrival time dis- tribution, roadway system distribution, background traffic reduction (10% in commuter travel), vehicle occupancy, and transit ridership. Results of the traffic modeling served to (1) identify areas of potential congestion, which were publicized to key agencies and the traveling public; (2) propose and test alternative solutions to alleviate identified potential bottlenecks; and (3) estimate travel time, which could be published for visitors to the Olympic venues. All results went through a sensitivity testing of these assump- tions. Most critical were the role of the spike in visitor ar- rivals and roadway distribution. The travel forecasting model addressed three planning levels: (1) the Olympic global level, (2) the corridor level, and (3) the interchange/intersection level. Analysis at each of these levels was for the purposes of addressing different issues. From the Olympic global level, the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee published a transportation guidebook for all Olympic-related travelers, as well as the local trav- eling public, listing travel time trip tables for different trip segments. Public meetings and local television news re- ports assisted in illustrating the congestion consequences of unmanaged traffic during the Games. The corridor-level analysis tested ways to reduce congestion and improve travel time through a critical 20-mile stretch of the corri- dor. The decision was to campaign for a reduction in truck volumes in the peak direction during peak travel periods to and from Olympic venues. Because the modeling also showed the implications of losing a single lane out of three as the result of accidents or disabled vehicles, it was de- cided that the number of tow trucks patrolling the route should be increased. The analysis at the interchange/inter- section level pointed toward numerous infrastructure and traffic control improvements. Actual traffic counts, venue arrival times, transit rider- ship, and vehicle occupancy were recorded during the Games and compared with the forecasts and assumptions made as inputs to the CORSIM modeling and the ensuing results. Roadway distribution was close to what was as- sumed. Transit ridership was 10% as opposed to 5%, the sought after 70% reduction in truck volume was 55%, ve- hicle occupancy was slightly lower than expected, and the background traffic reduction was six times more pro- nounced than initially hoped for. The transportation model- ing helped inform and define strategies to manage travel demand, and the result was a well-functioning transporta- tion system during the Olympic Games. Case Study of Data Analysis: Monmouth County (New Jersey) Modeling of Feeder Bus Service for Gateway National Recreation Area Sandy Hook Park, also known as the Gateway National Recreation Area (a national park), needed a solution to handle automobile traffic congestion that closes the park- ing lots long before the recreational area’s capacity is full. Visitors are turned away because there are few options for parking elsewhere. In addition, the one major route into the park (State Highway 36) is heavily congested. The goal of the modeling research was to maximize rid- ership on a public transit route between the Red Bank transfer rail station on the North Jersey Coast Line (oper- ated by the NJ Transit Corporation) and Sandy Hook at minimum cost to users and transit providers, given certain constraints (e.g., route limitations, train schedules, bus availability, service capacity, and budget). The model result as applied to Sandy Hook Park showed that feeder bus service would eliminate 200 daily vehicle trips into the park (600 visitors), resulting in less congestion and reduced tail pipe emissions. The model also identified optimal operational parameters for the type of transit service to be provided. This work indicated that bus service to the recrea- tion area is both feasible and cost-effective. It is also worth noting that other congestion-mitigation solutions underway for Sandy Hook include a multi-use trail for bicycles and pedestrians, made possible with fed- eral funds, and a new ferry dock for use by all regional ferry operators.

25 Case Study of Data Analysis: Central Florida’s Regional Study of Tourism and Commuter Trips This study was undertaken by the FDOT District 5 office (covering the Orlando region) to develop the data and models needed to provide more accurate forecasts of non- resident travel to central Florida. The goal was to produce more policy-sensitive forecasts to inform ongoing trans- portation planning efforts. The existing Florida Standard Urban Transportation Model Structure would be aug- mented to include the more detailed dynamics of trip gen- eration and allocation by visitors to a region. Model valida- tion and calibration was accomplished by testing data collected through a survey of visitors to the Orlando area on the Orlando Urban Area Transportation Structure. The model was refined to distinguish three tourist trip purposes: Disney tourist (Disney to and from hotel or mo- tel), Disney resident (Disney to and from homes in the Or- lando area), and Disney external/internal (Disney to and from external stations.) The study was successfully com- pleted, with both the Orlando Urban Area Transportation Structure and FDOT District 5 district-wide model incor- porating the results into the transportation planning. Addi- tional attraction-oriented trip generation was also consid- ered for Universal Studios and Orlando International Airport. Other Examples of Data Analysis: Program Planning and Evaluation • FDOT conducted a satisfaction survey of visitors to rate the state’s transportation system. With the assis- tance of “VisitFlorida” (formerly the Division of Tourism contained within the Department of Com- merce), FDOT obtained 402 telephone interviews with U.S. adults who visited Florida in 2000. The survey was augmented with the responses of interna- tional visitors arriving at a Florida airport, using the U.S. Department of Commerce’s survey of interna- tional visitors. Among the airport attributes evalu- ated, access to the airport and ground transportation were ranked relative to other U.S. airports. The ma- jority of the survey focused on the performance of and the experience of traveling on the state’s high- way systems. Topics where opinions were solicited included signage, road quality, connectivity, travel times, access, levels of congestion, roadside facili- ties, safety, and pedestrian and bicycling facilities. • PennDOT’s Division of Communication and Cus- tomer Relations has staged visitor information center focus groups at three locations around the state. This is designed to gather feedback from a diversity of us- ers, as well as to collect feedback from traveler sup- port organizations (such as the American Automobile Association) and the travel lodging industries. Since 1995, PennDOT has also conducted an annual survey of customer satisfaction with regard to visitor infor- mation centers, signage, snow removal, and litter and debris removal. The state DOT also reviews the re- sults of a biannual regional workshop organized by the state Department of Community and Economic Development. These workshops collect the objectives and concerns of tourism agencies and tourism indus- try stakeholders throughout the state. • Montana’s tourism agency, Travel Montana, relies on an annual forecast of tourist travel developed by the Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research at the University of Montana in Missoula for the purposes of marketing and tourism–recreation planning. Fore- cast data are resurveyed roughly every 5 years. Other states also rely on university research centers for tourism data. • The New Hampshire Division of Travel and Tourism conducts a formal evaluation of their collaborative planning process. This evaluation takes place on an annual basis as the DOT’s Tourism Advisory Com- mittee prepares for the DOT’s Annual Report. PROJECT SOLUTIONS All of the previously cited agency directives, multi-agency cooperative arrangements, and data analysis processes are directed at addressing existing and anticipated future tour- ism and recreation travel needs. The outcomes ultimately lead to the development of capital projects and support programs to serve tourism and recreation travelers. Survey results, previously shown in Figure 1, showed the areas of interest to state DOTs and other agencies. These results, together with findings from the literature review, additional survey questions, and case studies lead us to classify the various project solutions into the following four categories: • Travel routes and facilities that are also visitor attrac- tions—Scenic byways (automobile), eco-tourism, heritage trails (including bicycle and pedestrian fa- cilities), and rehabilitation of historic transportation facilities into visitor attractions; • Access facilities and services—Land and water shut- tle services, 511 traveler information services, non- auto-based multi-modal tour package development, and TMP; • Traveler information—Signage, variable messaging systems, visitor information and welcome centers, ITS, visitor publications, websites, and information kiosks; and • Operational and aesthetic improvements—Street- scape improvements, transportation facilities im- provements, research data, and analysis model im- provements.

26 Separate sets of profiles focus on various forms of shut- tle and transit services to serve visitors to tourism and recreation areas; tourism and recreation trails, tour routes, and scenic byways; and Internet, hard-copy publications, and telephone-based tourism and traveler information ser- vices. These profiles are followed by examples of other types of projects contained elsewhere in surveys and case studies in this document. Profiles of Tourism Transportation Projects: Transit Solutions • Acadia’s Island Explorer shuttle service (imple- mented in 1998) was made possible through a part- nership of Acadia National Park management with the Maine DOT (through the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee), the League of Towns, the Friends of Acadia, a local business group, and trans- portation providers to define and design a regional transit solution to increasing automobile congestion related to park visitors moving to and from the mainland. Multiple sources of funding including NPS, FHWA, FTA, Maine DOT, and local sources have supported this project from its inception. New sponsors are always being sought for ongoing opera- tional expenses and the expansion of service as needed. The propane-powered shuttles provide ser- vice along seven routes to town and park destinations on Mt. Desert Island, the nearby coastal communi- ties, and other islands. • Glacier Park’s refurbished red shuttle buses were the recent effort of a major automobile manufacturer. Thirty-two vehicles from among the depression-era fleet were overhauled and refit for propane-driven engines and are now available for shuttling visitors through the park. This was accomplished through a partnership of the National Park Foundation, Glacier National Park, and this automobile company. It is notable that this automobile company is also providing sponsorship of pilot projects in other na- tional parks including Yosemite, Point Reyes, Joshua Tree, Great Smokey Mountains, and ferry shuttle ser- vice at the Gateway National Recreation Area in New Jersey. Other existing shuttle programs include Bryce Canyon, Zion National Park, Yosemite, and Golden Gate Park. • The Sedona Shuttle Feasibility and Funding Strategy was developed in a final plan recommended to the city of Sedona in early 2003. The feasibility study grew out of an initial effort by the city, Yavapai and Coconino counties, the Coconino National Forest, the Northern Arizona Council of Governments, the Community Transportation Association of America, and the Arizona DOT to develop transit solutions for mitigating automobile congestion related to the in- flux of visitors to the Red Rocks area in Oak Creek Canyon. A transit solution was envisioned that would serve both area residents and visitors. A key recom- mendation from the study is that the combination of appropriate investment with policies and restrictions (pertaining to parking restrictions, incentives to use transit, and disincentives for bringing cars into the specific areas) would be a strong determinant of tran- sit ridership and therefore the success of the shuttle system. A funding matrix was constructed, drawing to- gether possible funding mechanisms, outlining total funds available, lead time to secure funding, eligibil- ity requirements, and the potential yield towards the project’s initial costs (capital and operational). Sources proposed included local mechanisms (taxes, impact fees, private donations, shuttle fare revenue, and lottery allotment), Arizona DOT local transporta- tion assistance funds, FTA Rural Transit Assistance, and TEA-21 funding (Public Lands Highway Pro- gram, Forest Highways Program, Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot Program, and Jobs Access Reverse Commute Program). The initial proposed fare of $1 per trip, which includes the recommended discount incentives, would cover 19% of the initial operating costs. The anticipated vehicle reduction as a result of attaining ridership goals at- tached to the maximum service plan would be 740 vehicles per day, which at a minimum would decrease the growth in congestion and perhaps reduce traffic volume into the area while protecting air quality and quality of life for the area’s residents and visitors. • Downtown D.C. circulator bus proposal, a new shut- tle service, is being proposed to connect the down- town, the National Mall, the U.S. Capitol, and Union Station. The need for this service is based on a desire to reduce tour bus congestion and parking problems, make the downtown more accessible, and provide for convenient mobility around the city. Existing public transit options are sufficient for moving people into and out of the city (MetroRail and MetroBus). It is believed that better access to the downtown would also help to support new, growing retail districts and recapture millions of dollars in visitor spending that currently gets spent outside of the area owing to ac- cess constraints and limited visitor-oriented retail and services. The ridership estimate is approximately 9,000 visitors per day attending the many and varied attrac- tions along the National Mall and the downtown. The plan currently has two proposed routes and service is modeled on other successful downtown cir- culator programs in use elsewhere in the country. The goal was to introduce a pilot program in 2003 (when

27 major downtown visitor-oriented projects were to be finished) and expand the service in 2005. Partners for this project include the Downtown D.C. Business Im- provement District, the District Division of Transpor- tation, Architect of the Capitol, General Services Administration, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, National Capital Planning Commis- sion, Union Station Redevelopment Corporation, and Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. These partners are bound by an MOU. The estimated cost of the project is $11.9 million for capital acquisi- tion and $6 million for annual operations. Funding procurement is underway and the project has been endorsed by the mayor’s office [listed as a priority project in Action Agenda for New Millennium (2000) and the D.C. Six-Year Strategic Transportation In- vestment Plan (1997)], the D.C. City Council, and by the National Capital Planning Commissions. • Anna Maria Island, with assistance from the FDOT Office of Modal Development, has implemented shuttle trolley service. Funding for this project came from state (transit corridor program), local, and pri- vate sources. The planning process was collaborative, involving state and local transportation and economic development agency representation. Coordination for the project’s development has been with the MPO. The marketing for the new service has been the role of tourism groups, area merchants, and hotels. Tour- ism concerns were key in the project approval. Fort Myers Beach has long-established shuttle service, and South Beach in Miami is working to implement shuttle service. • FDOT District 5 has been planning the Central Flor- ida Light Rail System for the past 5 years. This sys- tem would carry visitors to several major attractions located along the I-4 corridor. The MPO, transit agency (LYNX), local government, and stakeholder groups drawn from area businesses, theme parks, tourist agencies, and the public have been involved in FDOT’s planning for this system. FDOT’s invest- ment to date of $20 million has been directed to rail planning and environmental issues and is also being used to study the feasibility of an I-4 Corridor Circu- lator System and rail transit between the Orlando In- ternational Airport and the Convention Center. Profiles of Tourism Transportation Projects: Trails and Tours • Texas Birding and Wildlife Trails—The Texas Bird- ing and Wildlife Trail Program got underway with the development of the Great Coastal Birding Trail that runs the along the Texas coast from Louisiana to Mexico and connects more than 300 different birding locations. The project began in 1993, with the first site opened in 1994 and the last site completed in 1999. The Texas DOT was instrumental in obtaining Transportation Enhancement funds under ISTEA for this first project, and provided the 20% in matching funds. The success of the birding trail has prompted the Texas Wildlife and Parks Department and local partners to develop the Great Texas Wildlife Trail us- ing Transportation Enhancement funds available un- der TEA-21 (awarded in early 2001), with the re- maining 20% coming from the Texas Wildlife and Parks Department and local communities. Several more trails are underway—Piney Woods and the Prairie Wildlife Trails received TEA-21 funding in early 2002, and two subsequent trail proposals (Heart of Texas and the High Plains Trails) have been ap- proved by the Texas DOT. • D.C. Heritage Tours and Trails—A citywide system of D.C. Heritage Trails is under development through the combined efforts of the D.C. Heritage Tourism Council; D.C. Business Improvement District; the District Division of Transportation; U.S.DOT, neighborhood partners; Historical Society of Wash- ington, D.C.; and D.C. Department of Housing and Community Development. Two walking tours have already been launched—the Civil War to Civil Rights Trail (comprised of three loops with easy Metrorail access) and the City within a City Trail, located in the U Street/Shaw neighborhood. Each trail is marked by distinctive 6-ft-tall interpretative markers developed through research by historians focused on the specific neighborhoods. Free pocket-sized guidebooks are available at select neighborhood merchant locations. The Heritage Coalition has been the catalyst and manager of the trail program implementation. The process starts with grassroots interest in defining a signature tour theme of the neighborhood. Funding for the trails program comes from the Transportation Enhancement program under TEA-21 and matching funds from the District Division of Transportation. Funds cover streetscape improvements, development of interpretative markers, and visitor information re- lated to the trails. • Crowley’s Ridge Scenic Byway—The northeast cor- ner of Arkansas can now boast of the 198-mile Crow- ley’s Ridge Parkway. The impetus for this road’s dedication as a State (1997) and then National Scenic Byway (1998) was the realization that rural economic development could be ignited with tourism develop- ment, effective promotion, and roadway facilities in- vestment. This stretch of Crowley’s Ridge in Arkansas links five state parks, one national forest, Arkansas State University (ASU), numerous recreational assets, and the new Hemingway–Pfeiffer Museum and Educa-

28 tional Center. The museum also serves as the visitor information center at the northern end of the scenic byway and was envisioned by ASU Community De- velopment professor Dr. Ruth Hawkins, who also is responsible for the grassroots efforts to apply for state and national designation. The museum adds a cultural attraction that was needed to “anchor” the northern end of the scenic byway in the town of Piggott. The museum has attracted grant dollars from the Institute of Museum and Library Services to assist it in work- ing toward national accreditation. The grant will be used to perform a collections management assess- ment and help with strategic planning. Federal funding for the Scenic Byways Program has supported the promotion of and improvements along Crowley’s Ridge. ASU is a generator of visitor trips to the region and the hope is that the packaging (including spurring retail and services development) and promotion of the Crowley’s Ridge Scenic Byway will capture the economic benefit of visitor spending. • Southern Passages: The Atlantic Heritage Coast— The US-17/SR A1A corridor stretches along the At- lantic Coast from South Carolina to New Smyrna Beach, Florida. This tri-state route received its “heri- tage corridor” designation through the heritage tour- ism development initiative offered through the EDA. The combined efforts of private-sector interests, pub- lic agencies, and nonprofit and corridor advocacy entities across South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, have turned this corridor into a cohesive recreational and educational traveling route, as well as an alterna- tive to traveling on I-95. FDOT District 2 and 5 of- fices contributed matching funds to the $200,000 EDA grant. Profiles of Tourism Transportation Projects: Visitor Information Products and Services • Publications—Texas Highways and Arizona High- ways Magazine are two award-winning monthly magazines published by the Texas and Arizona DOTs, respectively, highlighting interesting trips across their states, special events, and visitor resource information. The Texas DOT handles event-related submissions for inclusion in the Texas State Travel Guide. • Web-based resources—Many state DOTs have devel- oped extensive pages on their agency websites to as- sist visitors with pre-trip planning. Three examples are provided, although many more exist. The Texas DOT provides the Texas Wildflower Reports—an up- to-date map showing where along the state’s major routes specific wildflowers are in bloom. The map can be searched by the type of bloom. The Maine DOT website presents the Explore Maine tour op- tions (five in all) for visitors not using an automobile. With education of the public in mind, the Oregon DOT, with the help of the Western Transportation In- stitute (WTI), has begun to document on its website how ITS projects throughout the state are performing and what benefit these investments have provided. • Traveler information resources—The WTI has been involved with a number of projects to help deliver traveler information in different formats. Earlier this year, the WTI helped the Montana DOT to become one of the few early implementer states with the adoption of a 511 system. As part of the Greater Yel- lowstone Rural ITS project, started in 1997, the WTI has recently helped establish information kiosks at six strategic visitor locations within Montana. Some of these locations involve the participation of private business establishments. Partnership for this pilot project also included the University of Montana, and Montana Departments of Labor, Commerce, and Transportation. FDOT District 5 implemented a 511 information number during 2002 for Central Florida’s I-4 Corri- dor, which can be used by visitors and commuters. Planning efforts, including stakeholder workshops, began in the spring of 2000. Recently, Florida re- ceived a $10 million FHWA grant for a pilot program to expand the District 5 ITS statewide. The District 5 DOT office will manage the grant and will draw from the district’s successful experience with multiple agencies and organizations in the planning and im- plementation of the 511 system, as well as the vari- able message systems along both I-4 and I-95 in Day- tona. Examples of Other Types of Projects Cited in Surveys and Case Studies • 511 traveler information systems—Florida, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Virginia. • Bicycle and hiking trails—Mississippi “Rails-to- Trails”; Georgia DOT bicycle and pedestrian trails; Federal Highway Land Management—Western Re- gion ADA Trail Implementation; and Alaska Copper River Trail. • Streetscape improvements for scenic and heritage ar- eas—Georgia DOT cityscape improvements. • Rehabilitation of old transportation facilities— Mississippi rail depot conversion, Pennsylvania— Railroad museum development, and Delaware Canal Lock Restoration. • Transportation management plans—SAFECO Field, Washington State (see case study); Salt Lake City Winter Olympic Games (see case study); Lake

29 George, New York, traffic management strategies; and Washington, D.C. Greenways circulation system (see case study). • Non-auto tour packages—Seattle’s “Car Smart” pro- gram, Maine’s “Explore Maine” program, Oregon’s rail and bus service extensions, New Jersey rail ser- vice to Atlantic City. • Water shuttles—Alaska’s “Fast Ferry” services and Gateway National Recreation Area, New York. • Wayfinding signage—SAFECO Field, Washington State (see case study); D.C. heritage tours (see case study); Georgia Logo program: Nebraska Scenic Byway signage; and Oregon Wayfinding site. • Variable message system—Florida and South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization. • Intelligent transportation systems—Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, Tennessee, and Vermont (Rutland area). • Transportation facility improvements—Federal High- way Lands Management Agency; Maryland, Minne- sota DOT, South Jersey Transportation Planning Or- ganization. • Improved modeling of visitor access and mobility— Central Florida tourism modeling (see case study); Gateway National Recreation Area, New York (see case study); and Salt Lake City Winter Olympic Games (see case study). • Bus shuttles—Acadia and Glacier National Parks (see case study); also, Denali, Golden Gate, Great Smokey Mountain, Yosemite, and Zion national parks.