Gaps in Parks Master Planning: Part Ten | Park transportational access

In 2024 I wrote a series of articles on Gaps in Park Master Planning, based on my experience sitting on a park board in Salt Lake City, with interesting inter-governmental relationships in that the park is jointly owned by the city and county, overseen by an independent board--as a kind of proto parks conservancy (like Central Park in New York City) but never with the investment or effort to develop the conservancy element ("Creating a Park Conservancy that Fits," Parks & Recreation).  My work on various projects in DC as well as on the Eastern Market public market board prepared me well for these issues.

-- "Gaps in Parks Master Planning: Part One | Levels of Service"

-- "Gaps in Parks Master Planning: Part Two | Utilizing Academic Research as Guidance"
-- "Gaps in Parks Master Planning: Part Three | Planning for Climate Change/Environment"
-- "Gaps in Parks Master Planning: Part Four | Planning for Seasonality and Activation"
-- "Gaps in Parks Master Planning: Part Five | Planning for Public Art as an element of park facilities"
-- "Gaps in Parks Master Planning, Part Six | Art(s) in the Park(s) as a comprehensive program"
-- "Gaps in Parks Master Planning: Part Seven | Park Architectural (and Landscape Design) History" 
-- "Gaps in Parks Master Planning: Part Eight | Civic Engagement"
-- "Gaps in Parks Master Planning: Part Nine | Second stage planning for parks using the cultural landscape framework" 

But while I have written a bunch about parks and transportational access, I didn't think to include that as another topic in the series.  The challenge is to ensure that as many parks as possible are accessible by transit.  This, and other forms of accessibility, should be covered in a parks master plan.

-- "Gaps in Parks Master Planning: Part Ten | Park transportational access" (2025)

A Toronto Star article, "When it comes to public spaces, like High Park and the Islands, access shouldn’t be a hurdle," reminds me that I have written about parks access issues for a decade or more, that I am dealing with it specifically for Sugar House Park (a project that is likely to take at least six years, and I hope it will include artistic intersection treatment, plant-related transit shelters, and median plantings, alongside a park-side bicycle lane and road dieting--taking one lane of the major east-west street abutting the park), and that this is definitely a gap in parks master planning, tricky because the access points are usually under the jurisdiction of local and state highway-transportation departments.

High Park Movement Implementation Strategy.

The article goes on to discuss High Park, where the city made a bunch of controversial changes making car access and parking more difficult ("High Park car ban: Can the city's changes ease the anger?").  From the article:

One year later, critics say that while the city moved quickly to close the park to vehicles, it hasn’t followed through with timely supports for people with mobility challenges, who can’t walk in from the perimeter, access the shuttle that runs from High Park subway station, or use the trackless train that runs through the park, but is not wheelchair accessible.

(Note this comes up with Sugar House Park too.  But it's a county park, and the Salt Lake Valley is the epitome of sprawl.  A car free park would significantly reduce participation.  Making the park car free just seems like picking at a scab.  Although I hope to start a program of weekend "Open Streets" over the course of the year.)

Goals.

First is the issue of physical access.  Is it easy to get to a park by walking, transit, trails, or car?  Most park access planning is focused on the car.  

Second is the issue of equity. When you require a car to access a park that this triggers equity concerns, and transit (and transit fare assistance) should be provided.  

Third, city park access on the perimeter may need greater focus.  For a "regular" city or county, the traditional transit system can suffice.  E.g., in Salt Lake City, most major parks are accessible via regular bus routes, although this access isn't necessarily well integrated into the park.

Sugar House Park, 1300 East.

Fourth, it's important to plan for seasonality, specifically winter, for city parks and trails, and snow clearance ("Gaps in Parks Master Planning: Part Four | Planning for Seasonality and Activation").  People use parks in winter.  So snow clearance may be an important issue, but may often be ignored.  Also in the early morning and evening when light diminishes.

Elements.

Railroad tourism to large national parks "out west" was the foundation of recreational passenger service.  It set the stage for park tourism, in both the US and Canada.  While many of Canada's parks still have train service, with US national parks it's hit or miss.  Except for a couple of private rail services focused on high end service and access.

Access.  Like with Toronto's park islands in Lake Ontario, the past blog entry "Revisiting: Access to Theodore Roosevelt Island, a national park in Washington, DC," discusses how a park in the Potomac River can only be accessed by a bridge from Virginia.  Ferry service from DC isn't provided.

Zion National Park shuttle bus.  Flickr photo by SoCal Metro.

National Parks.  The National Park Service does have a Transportation program, focused on reducing traffic congestion, visitor management, and preservation of natural areas within parks--the parks would be overwhelmed if people only used cars to get around within a park.

But generally these services are offered within parks, not to parks.  

Forests.  The USFS is much less developed on this element.  While many USFS sites are remote, a number are not, with major forests near or in major metropolitan areas like Atlanta, Los Angeles, and Salt Lake City, or other cities and tourist destinations like Sedona (USFS Urban National Forests).  

Pasadena is piloting a transit shuttle to the Angeles National Forest ("Urban Transit to Trails: Mt. Wilson Express Shuttle") with support from the federal park transportation access program.

Traffic congestion at Yellowstone National Park.

Dams and Fish and Wildlife installations.  Almost by definition these won't be accessible because they tend to be located far from cities.  Although local transit systems may provide service.  A fish and wildlife site in Metro Detroit is accessible by bus ("North America’s only international wildlife refuge is on the Detroit River. Visit by bus," Bridge Detroit).

Trailhead Direct transit shuttle, King County.

Local and state parks.  However, many parks are accessible through regular transit services, or special, usually seasonal park-focused transit such as in King County, Washington ("Yes, hiking. No, traffic. Trailhead Direct offers car-free travel from Seattle to the mountains," KUOW/NPR), Los Angeles County, Boulder, Sedona, etc.

Colorado's Bustang state supported inter-city bus service provides access to some state and national parks.

Salt Lake County.  The County is home to the Wasatch section of the Uintah-Wasatch-Cache National Forest but isn't accessible by transit.  

There is an exception with SkiBus (constantly being reduced because of lack of drivers) and some service in Big Cottonwood Canyon.  I've proposed the creation of what I call the Salt Lake County Recreational Transit District to provide such services.  

Park City Transit bus.

Resort communities.  Many resort communities across North America have transit services.  As a transportation demand management program, they are often free to use, to encourage both employees and visitors to ride.

For example, Park City and Summit County in Utah.  Summit County's High Valley Transit has even stepped in and replaced a service between Salt Lake City and Park City, that UTA said they couldn't provide.  Since HVT is free, so is bus route, which used to cost $5 each way.

With the support of Colorado DOT, Amtrak service runs from Denver to Winter Haven during ski season.  The Cuyahoga Scenic Railroad provides for bike access to the Cuyahoga Falls National Park.  Amtrak provides access to the Great Allegheny Passage Trail too, among others.

Water access.  A new 10-year plan to reduce traffic and improve safety and accessibility on Belle Isle calls for, among other things, bringing ferry service back to the island park and Detroit River ("Belle Isle’s 10-year mobility plan could see return of ferry service," Crain's Detroit Business). Nearer term, recommendations for two-way bicycle lanes circling the island, completion of the Ralph C. Wilson Jr. Centennial Trail and new wayfinding signs to help visitors find their way around are set to happen this year.

-- Belle Isle Park Multimodal Mobility Study

As mentioned above, Roosevelt Island in the Potomac River is not accessible from the DC side, only from Virginia.  This can be typical for parks in rivers.  

NPS does have some water transit access services, as do some localities, like Toronto and a ferry to Toronto Island Park, even if it is substandard ("Toronto's public spaces need results – not more plans," Toronto Globe & Mail).  Governors Island from New York City has a well regarded ferry service.

The National Park Service also supports "water trails," trails organized to connect parks, for people using waterborne vessels.

Trails.  Ideally, trail connections to parks are part of a broader system of regional trails.  Many cities and states have trail systems linking parks such as Philadelphia's Circuit Trails.  Akron, Ohio is a hub for three different trails, the Ohio and Erie Canal Towpath Trail, and the Freedom and Buckeye Trails.  The Great Allegheny Passage trail connects Pittsburgh to Washington, DC, partly via the C&O Canal National Park.  GAP has a Trail Towns economic development program to assist local communities with building bike tourism.

Increasingly, provision of trails within and to and from parks is less of an an issue.  If anything, trail access to parks is a high priority. Some parks have trail systems within a park as well.  The east coast Appalachian Trail and the west coast Pacific Coast Trail run along the entire coast of the US, and include both national and state parks on their routes. 

Access at Parks.

Parking.  While the point of this entry is facilitating non-motor vehicle access to parks, parking planning is a necessary element to accommodate users in ways that protect natural resources and other park users.  National and state parks usually charge a fee per vehicle.  Some regional parks in various jurisdictions, as well as beaches often charge for parking.  

Tillamook County, Oregon charges a parking fee at many of its parks and boat launches--$10/day or $55/year.

Sidewalks, intersection crossings, etc.  Does the park perimeter have a sidewalk?  Is the park accessible from nearby streets? 

Indianapolis Cultural Trail.

Are primary intersections into the park properly signalized and safe?  Are there opportunities for special entrance treatments incorporating artistic elements more generally or park specific?

From "Q & A with Cassie Wilson, a disabled Portlander and new bike rider," Bike Portland blog.

Americans for Disabilities Act.  Similarly, the park has ADA issues, and those continue to be addressed, limited by our budget and planning resources.

Salt Lake City did an ADA access plan for its parks and public buildings (ADA Self Evaluation and Transition Plan). 

More parks are taking care to provide ADA accessible trails and special mobility equipment to access them ("Building An Inclusive Park System For All Abilities," NY State Parks, Tillamook County, Oregon).

Intra-park mobility.  Most local and state parks have some issues where mobility access is inadequate in some way.

Sugar House Park has a biking and walking path as part of the street right of way.  It's less likely to vulnerability because the street ROW is one way--although that doesn't prevent wrong way driving or other mistakes.

But perhaps this could be separated from the road by being slightly elevated, in terms of its own paths.

Montreal.

Bicycle parking at a playground in Liberty Park, Salt Lake City.

Bicycling.  Bicycle parking, access to repair equipment, air, and perhaps electric charging for bicycles are park planning issues.  In terms of bicycle parking, providing secure parking for all types of bicycles, including cargo bikes and electric bikes, should be a part of the planning process. 

Access to bicycles is partly an equity issue.  Many parks have bicycle rental concessions. But that costs money. 

Bicycle sharing programs.  The original Tulsa Townies bicycle sharing system was designed to provide free bike use within Tulsa's Riverfront parks, although it is no longer in operation. Connecting four parks, Bismarck North Dakota has a park-based bicycle sharing system that is free to use.  Cities with widespread bicycle sharing programs provide bike sharing access naturally, although I am not familiar with any programs that provide free access for park users.

Bicycle sharing bikes on the National Mall in Washington, DC.

Wayfinding and cultural interpretation signage.  Directional signage for trails can be inadequate, forcing reliance on online sources, which some of us prefer not to use.

This can be an issue with statewide trails, regional trails like the Denver & Rio Grande Trail in Davis County, Utah ("Denver and Rio Grande Rail Trail in Davis County, Utah: a great foundation, full of (missed) opportunity") and local trails.

It's also nice to have cultural interpretation signage along the way, about local history, waterways and other topics.

Many years ago, the Passaic County NJ Transportation Plan included an element on historic interpretation of transportation infrastructure within the county, including rivers and canals.

  

Programming.  Programs to promote bicycling and walking should be part of parks master planning too.  Community cycling rides, training programs for children, supported walks, etc., are some of the programs that could be offered.

Some parks do close streets ("Open Streets" programs) disallowing motor vehicles for special events and weekends.  This is especially true overseas.