I n s t i t u t e o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n
S t u d i e s
( U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , D a v i s )
Y e a r 2 0 0 0 P a p e r U C D 􀀀 I T S 􀀀 R R 􀀀 0 0 􀀀 0 3
E m p l o y e e T r a v e l i n Y o s e m i t e N a t i o n a l
P a r k
K e n K u r a n i T o m T u r r e n t i n e
U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , D a v i s U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , D a v i s
T h i s p a p e r i s p o s t e d a t t h e e S c h o l a r s h i p R e p o s i t o r y , U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a .
h t t p : / / r e p o s i t o r i e s . c d l i b . o r g / i t s d a v i s / U C D 􀀀 I T S 􀀀 R R 􀀀 0 0 􀀀 0 3
C o p y r i g h t  c 2 0 0 0 b y t h e a u t h o r s .
E m p l o y e e T r a v e l i n Y o s e m i t e N a t i o n a l
P a r k
A b s t r a c t
T h i s r e p o r t d e s c r i b e s e m p l o y e e t r a v e l i n Y o s e m i t e N a t i o n a l P a r k . M o r e
s p e c i  c a l l y , i t d e s c r i b e s t h e t r a v e l u n d e r t a k e n b y e m p l o y e e s a s i t r e l a t e s t o t h e i r
r o l e s a s e m p l o y e e s . T h u s , c o m m u t i n g t o w o r k , p e r s o n a l s t o p s m a d e i n c o n j u n c -
t i o n w i t h c o m m u t e t r i p s , t r i p s m a d e t o c o m p l e t e w o r k 􀀀 r e l a t e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ,
a n d p e r s o n a l t r i p s m a d e d u r i n g a w o r k s h i f t a r e a d d r e s s e d . T r a v e l u n d e r t a k e n
b y e m p l o y e e s 􀀀 a s 􀀀 p r i v a t e c i t i z e n s , f o r e x a m p l e , t r a v e l o n t h e i r d a y s o  a n d
t r i p s m a d e a f t e r r e t u r n i n g h o m e a t t h e e n d o f w o r k d a y , a r e n o t a d d r e s s e d . I n
a d d i t i o n t o w o r k 􀀀 r e l a t e d t r a v e l t h i s r e p o r t p r o v i d e s a d e s c r i p t i o n o f e m p l o y e e s ,
t h e i r h o m e a n d w o r k l o c a t i o n s a n d w o r k h o u r s , a n d o p i n i o n s o f p o t e n t i a l a l t e r -
n a t i v e c o m m u t e m o d e s .
T h e p r i m a r y d a t a s o u r c e i s a s u r v e y o f e m p l o y e e s . T h e t i m e f r a m e w a s t h e
s u m m e r o f 1 9 9 9 . E m p l o y e e s o f Y o s e m i t e C o n c e s s i o n S e r v i c e s C o r p o r a t i o n w e r e
s u r v e y e d i n A u g u s t ; e m p l o y e e s o f t h e P a r k S e r v i c e a n d o f t h e \ p a r k p a r t n e r s "
w e r e s u r v e y e d i n S e p t e m b e r . T h e p a r k p a r t n e r s i n c l u d e t h e Y o s e m i t e A s s o -
c i a t i o n , Y o s e m i t e I n s t i t u t e , U . S . P o s t O  c e , U . S . D i s t r i c t C o u r t , T h e A n s e l
A d a m s G a l l e r y , a n d t h e m e d i c a l / d e n t a l c l i n i c .
EMPLOYEE TRAVEL IN YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK
UCD- ITS- RR- 00- 03
Kenneth S Kurani
Thomas Turrentine
Sean Co
Institute of Transportation Studies
University of California
One Shields Avenue
Davis, CA 95658
USA
phone ( 530) 752- 4909
fax: ( 530 752- 6572
Report to
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Yosemite National Park
Pursuant to
Cooperative Agreement CA8800- 99- 037
May 2000
i
Disclaimer
The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should
not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the U. S. Government. Mention
of trade names or commercial products does not constitute their endorsement by the U. S.
Government.
i i
Table of Contents
Disclaimer .............................................................................................................................. i
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................. ii
List of Tables........................................................................................................................ iv
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... vii
ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ......... 1
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 3
DESCRIBING THE SAMPLE OF RESPONDENTS AND ESTIMATING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
POPULATION OF YOSEMITE EMPLOYEES ................................................................................ 5
Weighting the Sample to Estimate the Population................................................................ 5
Socio- Economic and Demographic Description................................................................... 6
Gender......................................................................................................................... ................................ 6
Age............................................................................................................................ ................................... 6
Employment Duration....................................................................................................................... ........... 7
Household Income......................................................................................................................... ............ 10
Employer and Workplace Location .................................................................................... 11
Daily, Hourly, and Seasonal Work Patterns........................................................................ 12
Residence Location ............................................................................................................. 14
Commute Trip Time and Distance...................................................................................... 14
Commute Travel Modes...................................................................................................... 17
Employee Parking ............................................................................................................... 18
Trips made in Conjunction with Commuting and Trips to Complete Errands During the
Day ............................................................................................................................... . 19
Travel for Work................................................................................................................... 19
Commute Travel Mode Alternatives................................................................................... 20
ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................... 22
Employee Travel in Yosemite Valley ................................................................................. 22
Commute Trips of Employees who both Live and Work in Yosemite Valley............................................... 22
Commute Trips of People Who Work in, but Reside outside, Yosemite Valley................ 25
Total Employee Light- Duty Vehicle Movements in Yosemite Valley............................... 28
Commute Travel to El Portal, Wawona, and Tuolumne Meadows .................................... 30
El Portal ............................................................................................................................... ..................... 31
Wawona......................................................................................................................... ............................ 34
Tuolumne Meadows........................................................................................................................ ........... 37
Employee Commute Alternatives ....................................................................................... 40
Reasons why Drive- alone Commuters will not Consider Alternative Commute Modes............................. 41
Preferred Commute Alternatives among those Who Would Consider An Alternative................................ 42
What Would Encourage Use of Alternative Commute Travel Modes?....................................................... 45
State Route 140/ El Portal Road Analyses........................................................................... 48
Yosemite Employee Commuter Bus “ Constraints” Analysis...................................................................... 48
Estimating the Total Number of Potential Commute Bus Riders................................................................ 52
Yosemite Employee Traffic on SR 140 and El Portal Road........................................................................ 58
Total traffic on SR 140 and El Portal Road................................................................................................ 58
CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................... 67
ii i
Employment and Residence Location................................................................................. 67
Commute Trip Characteristics ............................................................................................ 67
Employee Travel in Yosemite Valley ................................................................................. 69
Alternative Travel Modes for Commute Trips.................................................................... 70
Estimating Potential Riders of an Employee Commuter Bus Service on SR140/ El Portal
Road........................................................................................................................... .... 70
Employee Traffic on SR140/ El Portal Road....................................................................... 71
Summary Remarks .............................................................................................................. 71
APPENDIX A: YOSEMITE EMPLOYEE QUESTIONNAIRE......................................................... 73
APPENDIX B: EMPLOYEES’ COMMENTS ................................................................................ 82
iv
List of Tables
Table 1: Number of Yosemite Employees and Survey Sample Size, 1999 .............................. 4
Table 2: Approximate Spatial Distribution of NPS and YCS Employees, Summer only ........ 4
Table 3: Sample Weights .......................................................................................................... 6
Table 4: Age Distribution of NPS and YCS Employees........................................................... 7
Table 5: Employment Duration in Years, Population Estimate, Percent................................ 10
Table 6: Household Income Distribution by Employer .......................................................... 11
Table 7: Estimated Population Distribution of Residence Location of Yosemite Employees
by Employer............................................................................................................ 15
Table 8: Statistics for the Estimated One- Way Commute Time and Distance Distributions . 16
Table 9: Estimated Commute Travel Mode Shares for Yosemite Employees........................ 17
Table 10: Estimated Commute Travel Mode Shares, including Users of Single and Multiple
Modes ..................................................................................................................... 18
Table 11: Estimated Incidence of Trip Making to Accomplish Personal Business and Errands
............................................................................................................................... 19
Table 12: Travel for Work Modes........................................................................................... 20
Table 13: Number of Employees who both Live and Work in Yosemite Valley ................... 23
Table 14: Statistics of the Distribution of Commute Trip Duration, in Minutes, of Employees
who both Live and Work in Yosemite Valley. ....................................................... 24
Table 15: Statistics of the Commute Trip Length, in Miles, of Employees who both Live and
Work in Yosemite Valley. ...................................................................................... 24
Table 16: Commute Mode Distribution of Employees who both Live and Work in Yosemite
Valley...................................................................................................................... 25
Table 17: Number of Employees who Work in Yosemite Valley, but Live Outside the Valley
............................................................................................................................... 26
Table 18: Statistics of the Distribution of Commute Trip Duration, in Minutes, of Employees
who Work in, but Reside outside, Yosemite Valley............................................... 27
Table 19: Statistics of the Commute Trip Length, in Miles, of Employees who Work in, but
Reside outside, Yosemite Valley............................................................................ 27
Table 20: Commute Mode Distribution of Employees who Work in, but Reside Outside,
Yosemite Valley. .................................................................................................... 28
Table 21: Index of Daily Employee- Related LDV Movements in Yosemite Valley ............. 30
Table 22: Number of Employees who Work at El Portal ....................................................... 31
Table 23: Statistics of the Distribution of Commute Trip Duration of Employees who Work
in El Portal. ............................................................................................................. 32
v
Table 24: Statistics of the Commute Trip Length, in miles, of Employees who Work in El
Portal....................................................................................................................... 33
Table 25: Commute Mode Distribution of Employees who Work at El Portal. ..................... 34
Table 26: Number of Employees who Work at Wawona ....................................................... 35
Table 27: Statistics of the Distribution of Commute Trip Duration, in Minutes, of Employees
who Work in Wawona. ........................................................................................... 36
Table 28: Statistics of the Commute Trip Length, in Miles, of Employees who Work in
Wawona .................................................................................................................. 36
Table 29: Commute Mode Distribution of Employees who Work at Wawona...................... 37
Table 30: Number of Employees who Work at Tuolumne Meadows..................................... 37
Table 31: Statistics of the Distribution of Commute Trip Duration, in Minutes, of Employees
who Work in Tuolumne Meadows. ........................................................................ 39
Table 32: Statistics of the Commute Trip Length, in Miles, of Employees who Work in
Tuolumne Meadows. .............................................................................................. 39
Table 33: Commute Mode Distribution of Employees who Work at Tuolumne Meadows. .. 40
Table 34: Willingness of Employees who Drive Alone to Consider Alternative Modes ....... 41
Table 35: Reasons Why Alternative Commute Travel Modes Would Not be Considered,
number of people providing each reason................................................................ 42
Table 36: Preferred Alternative Commute Travel Mode ........................................................ 42
Table 37: Preferred Alternative Mode by Current Commute Travel Modes .......................... 44
Table 38: Preferred Alternative Mode by Residence and Workplace Location ..................... 45
Table 39: What would encourage use of commute alternatives, count................................... 47
Table 40: Sequential Derivation of Estimate of Potential Number of Commute Bus Users .. 49
Table 41: Workplace and Residence Locations of those Yosemite Employees who both Live
and Work along SR 140/ El Portal Road. ................................................................ 50
Table 42: Number of People who Live and Work in the Same or Different Places. .............. 50
Table 43: Residence and Workplace Locations of those Yosemite Employees who both Live
and Work along SR 140/ El Portal Road, but not at the Same Location................. 50
Table 44: Residence by Workplace Locations........................................................................ 51
Table 45: Potential SR140/ El Portal Road Commute Bus Riders by Employer..................... 53
Table 46: Workplace, Work Start Time and Residence Location........................................... 55
Table 47: Workplace, Work End Time, and Residence Location........................................... 56
Table 48: Employer and Work Location, Percent of each Sub- set Working at each Location,
percent..................................................................................................................... 57
Table 49: What would cause those interested in a bus to work to use it?............................... 58
v i
Table 50 : Estimated Traffic on SR 140 near the Yosemite National Park Boundary, Caltrans
data from 1998........................................................................................................ 59
Table 51: Yosemite Employees who Commute on SR 140/ El Portal Road by Travel Mode
and Direction of Morning Commute, number ........................................................ 60
Table 52: Yosemite Employee Commute Vehicles ................................................................ 61
Table 53: Estimates of Yosemite Employee Commute Traffic as a Percent of Total Traffic on
SR 140/ El Portal Road............................................................................................ 62
Table 54: Commute Trip Characteristics at the Four Largest Employment Centers in the Park
............................................................................................................................... 68
Table 55: Estimated Population Commute Travel Mode Shares of Yosemite Employees,
percent..................................................................................................................... 68
Table B1: Summary of Written Comments............................................................................. 82
Table B2: Verbatim Comments............................................................................................... 83
vi i
List of Figures
Figure 1: Population Estimates of Yosemite Employees in each Age Category, Percent ........ 7
Figure 2: Cumulative Employment Duration, Percent by Years of Employment .................... 9
Figure 3: Estimated Population Income Distribution, Percent in each Income Category....... 11
Figure 4: Estimated Distribution of Work Start Times for the Population of Yosemite
Employees in 24- hour clock time, Percent ............................................................. 13
Figure 5: Estimated Distribution of Work End Times for the Population of Yosemite
Employees in 24- hour clock time, Percent ............................................................. 13
Figure 6: Estimated Distribution of One- Way Commute Time in minutes, Percent .............. 15
Figure 7: Estimated Distribution of One- way Commute Distance in miles, Percent ............. 16
Figure 8: Commute Trip Duration, in Minutes, for Employees who both Live and Work in
Yosemite Valley, Percent ....................................................................................... 23
Figure 9: Commute Trip Duration, in minutes, for Employees who Work in, but Reside
outside, Yosemite Valley, Percent.......................................................................... 26
Figure 10: Commute Trip Duration, in minutes, for Employees who Work in El Portal,
Percent .................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 11: Commute Trip Duration, in Minutes, for Employees who Work in Wawona,
Percent .................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 12: Commute Trip Duration, in minutes, for Employees who Work in Tuolumne
Meadows, Percent................................................................................................... 38
Figure 13: Distribution of Work Start Times among Potential Commute Bus Riders ........... 52
Figure 14: Distribution of Work End Times among Potential Commute Bus Riders............. 53
Figure 15: Shift start times and Time at El Portal among SR 140/ El Portal Road Commuters,
Eastbound Morning Commute, August 1998, percent of total by hour.................. 63
Figure 16: Time at the Arch Rock Entrance Station, Eastbound Yosemite Visitors, August
1996, percent of total by hour................................................................................. 64
Figure 17: Shift end times and Time at El Portal among SR 140/ El Portal Road Commuters,
Westbound Afternoon Commute, August 1998, percent of total by hour.............. 65
Figure 18: Time Visitors Exit Yosemite National Park, All Exits, July 1998, percent of total
by hour .................................................................................................................... 66
1
Abstract
This report describes employee travel in Yosemite National Park. More specifically, it
describes the travel undertaken by employees as it relates to their roles as employees. Thus,
commuting to work, personal stops made in conjunction with commute trips, trips made to
complete work- related responsibilities, and personal trips made during a work shift are
addressed. Travel undertaken by employees- as- private citizens, for example, travel on their
days off and trips made after returning home at the end of workday, are not addressed. In
addition to work- related travel this report provides a description of employees, their home
and work locations and work hours, and opinions of potential alternative commute modes.
The primary data source is a survey of employees. The timeframe was the summer of 1999.
Employees of Yosemite Concession Services Corporation were surveyed in August;
employees of the Park Service and of the “ park partners” were surveyed in September. The
park partners include the Yosemite Association, Yosemite Institute, U. S. Post Office, U. S.
District Court, The Ansel Adams Gallery, and the medical/ dental clinic.
As the employment and residence location of employees has a strong effect on work- related
travel, this report is organized around locations. After a general description of the sample and
population estimates, we look at employee travel in Yosemite Valley, El Portal, Wawona,
Tuolumne Meadows. For each, we describe differences in work travel between those people
who both live and work at each location, and those who commute from some distance away.
As one would expect, those who live near their workplace have brief commute trips, which
many accomplish by walking or cycling. Those who commute from some distance typically
spend 45 minutes commuting each way; most do so by driving alone or in carpools.
Carpooling was the preferred commute travel mode of most people who currently drive alone
to work. Just over half of Yosemite employees commute to work by driving alone at least
sometimes; about one- third commute exclusively by driving alone. We had expected that
among those employees who drive alone to work, their preferred options to driving alone
would be shaped by where they worked. However, it appears that current experience with
alternatives to driving alone is more important. For example, someone who already carpools
occasionally is most likely to list carpooling as their preferred alternative.
Among those who ever drive alone, only one- fourth adamantly refuse to consider
alternatives. The most frequently cited single reason that people were unwilling to consider
alternatives to driving alone is the need to fulfill personal, familial, and social obligations
either on the way to work, or more typically, after work. This reason is both the first most
likely response and the most likely response when added across all three possible responses.
Other common responses related to this idea are “ Independence, convenience of own car”
and “ Unable or unwilling to rely on coordinating with others.” In aggregate though, work
schedules are an even more frequently cited reason for not considering an alternative to
driving alone. A combined 44% stated that either their work shift was too early or too late, or
that their work hours were too variable to allow them to use an alternate to driving alone.
We conduct two analyses of commute travel along the State Route 140/ El Portal Road. This
route connects the town of Mariposa, the Midpines area, the Park Service Administrative
Area in El Portal, and Yosemite Valley. First, we estimate the potential size of the user group
for a commuter bus service. The estimate— which amounts to some 360 employees per
2
weekday— is derived from a set of assumptions regarding workplace and residence location,
as well as daily and seasonal work time patterns. These people represent 17% of the current
employees at El Portal or in Yosemite Valley. The single assumption which excludes the
most people is the assumption that people who both live and work at the same place are not
part of a commuter bus market. 35% of the employees at El Portal also reside there; 62% of
employees in Yosemite Valley currently reside there.
Second, we estimate the portion of traffic on State Route 140/ El Portal Road that is due to
Yosemite employee commute travel. Depending on the direction of travel, the location along
the road, and assumptions about the precise commute trip mode shares on any given day, the
estimates are on the order of 10 to 20% of daily traffic.
Commute travel is highly concentrated in time. The percentage of eastbound traffic at El
Portal during the peak morning commute hour of 7: 00 to 8: 00 that is due to Yosemite
employees is estimated to about 75%. During the peak afternoon commute hour of 17: 00 to
18: 00, the percentage of westbound traffic at El Portal that is due to Yosemite employees is
estimated to be between 34 and 41%.
The afternoon employee peak commute time corresponds to the beginning of the visitor peak
traffic flow leaving Yosemite Valley. This correspondence in time of employee and visitor
traffic on this road, coupled with the physical impediment to traffic flow represented by the
roadway configuration at the Arch Rock Entrance Station, leads to congested traffic at this
location in the early evening.
Park planning alternatives which remove employee housing from Yosemite Valley may
increase employee travel on roads leading to, and entering, the park, but will also increase
potential transit populations. The largest share of current employee commute traffic moves
along SR140/ El Portal Road. Increases in employee traffic along this route may not impact
visitor experience if that increase occurs at the same time as, or earlier than, the current
morning Yosemite employee commute. Increasing employee traffic during the exiting
afternoon/ evening commute period appears likely to exacerbate an existing traffic congestion
problem. Policies and programs to promote transit use— among employees and visitors— can
facilitate the elimination of afternoon traffic queues at Arch Rock.
3
Introduction
As part of the traffic, travel, and visitor experience studies conducted in Yosemite National
Park during the summer of 1999, the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of
California, Davis undertook a survey of employees working in the park. This survey provides
a description of employees, their home and work locations and work hours, current commute
travel modes, trips made for work, trips made in conjunction with commuting, and opinions
of potential alternative commute travel modes. This study does not cover travel made by
employees as private citizens.
We distinguish travel to work from travel for work as follows. Travel to work refers to the
commute trip between home and workplace. The workplace is defined as the place at which
an employee works, or the place to which the employee usually first reports before traveling
to the various sites they may visit in the course of their work day. Travel for work is any
travel undertaken to complete job responsibilities, other than commuting between home and
workplace. Examples of travel for work include: travel through campgrounds to collect fees;
travel to attend a meeting in El Portal if the workplace is in Yosemite Valley or some other
part of the park; travel to public hearings in towns around the park; travel to deliver linens to
lodging facilities; travel to deliver materials to the recycling center; travel to patrol the
park— anything that takes an employee away from his or her workplace as part of their job.
There are two major employers in the park. They are the National Park Service ( NPS) and
Yosemite Concession Services Corporation ( YCS). In addition, there are a number of park
partners who employ a relatively small number of people. Park partners include the Yosemite
Association, Yosemite Institute, U. S. Post Office, U. S. District Court, The Ansel Adams
Gallery, and the medical/ dental clinic. Counts of the number of summer employees, by
employer, as well as a breakdown of the number of returned questionnaires are shown in
Table 1. ( A lesser number of people are employed, by all employers, during the winter.)
Questionnaires were distributed to all YCS employees in August and to all employees of the
NPS and park partners in September. The total number of questionnaires returned was 961,
as shown in Table 1. The total sample will be referred to simply as “ Yosemite employees.”
The questions are included as Appendix A of this report.
The general spatial distribution of employee work locations is shown in Table 2 for NPS and
YCS employees. Park partner employees are not shown in Table 2 as almost all park partner
employees work in Yosemite Valley, though a few do work in El Portal and other locations.
The major employment centers are Yosemite Valley, El Portal, the Wawona/ Mariposa Grove
area, and Tuolumne Meadows. As the most popular scenic attractions are located in, or
typically viewed from, Yosemite Valley, both NPS and YCS have large numbers of
employees and facilities in the Valley. From Table 2 we calculate that about half of all NPS
employees and three- fourths of YCS employees work in Yosemite Valley. NPS
administrative and maintenance facilities are located in El Portal. About 30% of NPS
employees work place in El Portal. A relatively small number of employees work at a
number of other places throughout the park.
4
Table 1: Number of Yosemite Employees and Survey Sample Size, 1999
Employer Summer Sample Size1
The Ansel Adams Gallery 16 —
Medical Clinic/ Dental 38 —
U. S. District Court 6 —
Yosemite Association 60 —
Yosemite Institute 49 —
U. S. Post Office 15 —
Total park partner 184 62
National Park Service 872 444
Yosemite Concession Service 1,750 455
Total Yosemite Employees 2,756 961
1. Sub- sample sizes are not shown for each park partner since relatively few people work for any one of them.
Response rates for individual park partners are therefore not particularly meaningful since one more, or one
less, person would dramatically change the response rate, without materially affecting the ( low) statistical
significance of any conclusions we might draw about any single park partner.
Table 2: Approximate Spatial Distribution of NPS and YCS Employees, Summer only
Location NPS YCS
Yosemite Valley 427 1,378
El Portal 263 8
Wawona/ Mariposa Grove 66 130
Tuolumne Meadows — 125
Other1 116 109
Total 872 1,750
Source: Draft Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan/ EIS. pp. III- 214.
Note 1. Includes Tuolumne Meadows.
Based on the total Yosemite employee counts in Table 1 and the number of returned
questionnaires, we calculate that 35% of all Yosemite employees returned their
questionnaire. Among NPS employees, 54% responded; among YCS employees, 27%; and
among park partners, 34%. We assume that these figures can be treated as response rates. To
the best of our knowledge, all employees were given a questionnaire. YCS distributed
questionnaires to its employees; NPS distributed questionnaires to its employees and to the
park partners.
5
Describing the Sample of Respondents and Estimating
Characteristics of the Population of Yosemite Employees
In this section we provide a description of the sample of Yosemite employees who responded
to the questionnaire and estimate characteristics of the total population of Yosemite
employees. Throughout this report, we will refer to results limited strictly to the survey
respondents as “ sample” results, e. g., sample counts or sample data; inferences regarding all
Yosemite employees will be referred to as “ population” estimates.
The sample description is presented to provide the reader with a basic orientation as to who is
in the sample and to explore ways in which we believe the survey respondents might differ,
as a group, from the group of all employees. Where comparative information is available, or
reasonable arguments can be made, this information is also used to assess whether the sample
is representative of all NPS, YCS, and park partner employees.
We do find, as discussed below in the section on daily, weekly and seasonal work patterns,
that this sample likely under- represents summer seasonal YCS employees. The ramifications
of this are different depending on the types of questions one is trying to answer. The State
Route 140/ El Portal Road commute analysis presented later is relatively unaffected.
Currently, most summer seasonal YCS employees live in Yosemite Valley near their
employment location and therefore do not commute along this corridor. On the other hand, if
one is trying to count all employee commute trips in Yosemite Valley, then results from this
sample must be adjusted to reflect the known bias in the sample.
Weighting the Sample to Estimate the Population
In order to move beyond a simple description of the sample to make appropriate inferences
about the entire population of Yosemite employees we need to create a system of weights to
apply to the sample data. The weights account for differences in response rates between
different sub- samples. Two sources of such differences were introduced by the questionnaire
distribution process. These are differences by employer and by employment location.
The weights to convert results based on the sample of respondents to estimates of the whole
population are summarized in Table 3. The weights are calculated by taking the ratio of the
known percentage of each combination of employer and employment location to the
observed percentage of employees by employer and employment location in the sample. A
single weight was developed for employees at workplace locations other than Yosemite
Valley, El Portal, Wawona or Tuolumne Meadows, as well as for employees who report their
workplace location is variable. There are few employees in either category, and the use of a
single weight has no substantive effect on the results reported below.
6
Table 3: Sample Weights
Workplace
Employer
El Portal
Tuolumne
Meadows
Wawona
Yosemite
Valley
Other, or
Variable,
Locations
NPS 1.852 1.471 1.277 2.791 1.117
YCS 8.000 8.333 2.955 2.519 1.117
park partner 0.882 1.000 2.500 4.548 1.117
Many estimated measures of the population of Yosemite employees are similar to the
distribution of the same measures in the sample of survey respondents. For some measures
though, the population estimates lead to very different conclusions than if we had relied on
the sample only. We highlight the similarities and differences throughout this report. In
general, the population estimates that differ most are related to spatial distribution and
differences between employees of different employers. These are exactly the types of effects
that the weights are intended to produce. That is, the weights redistribute the data according
to the employer and the workplace of the respondents, based on differences in response rates
that are plausibly related to how the questionnaires were distributed.
Socio- Economic and Demographic Description
Gender
The sample is composed of 44% women and 56% men. This split is similar among both NPS
and YCS respondents. Park partner employees who responded to the questionnaire are more
likely to be women than are the employees of the two major employers— across all park
partners, 61% of respondents are women.
The population estimate of the gender split for the whole population of Yosemite employees
is not substantively different from the sample split. We estimate that across the population of
Yosemite employees, 44% are women and 56% are men. The gender split among NPS
employees is estimated to be 41% women, 59% men. For YCS, the population split is
estimated to be 44/ 56; for park partners, 56/ 44.
Age
The sample data and population estimates for the age distribution of the Yosemite employees
are provided in Table 4. The population estimate of the age distribution is plotted in Figure 1
as a percent of employees in each age category. YCS and park partner employees are more
likely to be young than are NPS employees, they are twice as likely to be younger than 30 as
are NPS employee. The age distribution of NPS employees rises to a peak in the years of 40
to 49, then declines. A similar distribution holds for employees of the park partners— the
single most likely age category is 40 to 49 years, though the distribution is skewed toward
younger employees. The single most likely age category for YCS employees is 20 to 29.
7
Table 4: Age Distribution of NPS and YCS Employees
Sample Count Population Estimate
Age NPS YCS Park
partners
NPS YCS Park
partners
Younger than 20 2 39 1 3 129 5
20 to 29 69 126 27 127 428 64
30 to 39 100 102 14 200 340 40
40 to 49 160 111 7 321 390 28
50 to 59 69 49 10 137 162 31
60 to 64 18 15 0 36 40 0
Older than 64 17 5 1 35 12 5
Total 435 447 60 859 1501 173
Figure 1: Population Estimates of Yosemite Employees in each Age Category, Percent
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Younger than
20
20 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 59 60 to 64 Older than 64
Age, years
NPS YCS park partners
We note that since age above 60 years is divided into two categories, readers may wonder if
we have under- represented older workers in the description just given. However, even
combining the two highest categories, there is a small proportion of people in the oldest age
category. In fact, YCS employees are still more likely to be younger than 20 ( a category
which itself is shorter than it appears since realistically employees cannot be much younger
than 20) than they are to be older than 60.
Employment Duration
Within the sample of respondents, employment duration ranges from two weeks ( 0.042
years) to 45 years. Both the mean duration of employment for the sample and the estimated
8
mean of the population are 7.8 years. However, the median for both is only 5 years. Since the
mean is larger than the median, we know the mean is skewed upwards by a relatively few
employees with long employment duration. Since these results for the sample and the
population are nearly identical, we will discuss only our estimates of the population’s
employment duration further.
There are differences in employment duration between employers. Among NPS employees,
mean employment duration is estimated to be 8.95 years; among YCS employees, 7.57 years;
and among park partner employees, 4.44 years. This difference is statistically significant at
better than the 5% level, i. e., there is less than a 5% probability that this difference is due to
chance alone. The differences in median length of employment are: NPS, 6.00 years; YCS,
4.33; and park partners, 2.00. The causes for these differences can be seen in Figure 2.
The figure illustrates cumulative employment duration, shown as the percent of employees
who have been employed for no more than each year amount of time. That is, the “ year one”
data point is the percentage of employees who have been employed by NPS, YCS, or a park
partner for one year or less. The “ year two” data point is the percentage of employees who
have been employed for two years or less, including all those who have been employed for
one year or less. The data provided in Table 5 show the percentage of employees whose
employment duration is within specific time frames, i. e., one would sum the data in Table 5
( up to any given year) to obtain Figure 2.
We see that YCS employees and the park partners are far more likely to have short
employment histories with their current employer than are employees of the Park Service.
Over 30% of YCS and park partner employees report they have been employed by their
current employer for less than one year. In contrast, only 20% of NPS employees have been
employed by the Park Service for one year or less. If we breakdown the first year further, and
look at employees with employment duration of 3 months or less, only 10% of NPS
employees do, while 16% of YCS employees do.
9
Figure 2: Cumulative Employment Duration, Percent by Years of Employment
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Cumulative employment tenure, years
NPS YCS Park partner
Park partners are much more likely to have shorter employment duration— 77% of park
partner employees have been employed for 5 years or less. Only 42% of NPS employees
have been employed for 5 years or less, and 55% of YCS employees.
Employment duration for YCS and NPS employees are different up until about 11 to 12
years employment. There are a higher percentage of YCS employees whose employment
duration is shorter than NPS employees up to this point. However, 70% of both groups of
employees have employment duration of 11 to 12 years or less, and above this time, the two
distributions are essentially identical. Almost all the difference in the mean and median
values of employment duration between NPS and YCS employees can be explained by the
much higher percentage of YCS employees who have been employed for one year or less.
1 0
Table 5: Employment Duration in Years, Population Estimate, Percent
Employment duration NPS YCS Park partner
1 year or less 20% 32% 33%
1 to 2 years 7% 8% 18%
2 to 3 6% 5% 12%
3 to 4 5% 5% 8%
4 to 5 4% 5% 6%
5 to 6 6% 5% 3%
6 to 7 5% 4% 1%
7 to 8 4% 2% 3%
8 to 9 4% 1% 0%
9 to 10 5% 2% 1%
10 to 11 4% 2% 0%
11 to 12 2% 3% 1%
12 to 13 2% 2% 5%
13 to 14 1% 2% 1%
14 to 15 2% 3% 3%
15 to 16 1% 2% 3%
16 to 17 3% 2% 0%
17 to 18 2% 2% 0%
18 to 19 2% 1% 0%
19 to 20 1% 4% 1%
20 to 21 1% 1% 0%
21 to 22 2% 2% 0%
22 to 23 1% 1% 0%
23 to 24 1% 0% 3%
24 to 25 1% 2% 0%
25 to 26 1% 1% 0%
26 to 27 1% 0% 0%
27 to 28 1% 0% 0%
28 to 29 1% 0% 0%
More than 29 years 2% 2% 1%
Household Income
As was the case with employment duration, there is little difference between the sample
results and the population estimates, so we proceed to discuss the population estimates. The
sample count data and the estimated population distribution are given in Table 6. The
household income distribution, as the percent of people in each category by employer, is
shown in Figure 3. In general, the only effect of weighting the data is to slightly shift the
income distribution downward. For the sample we measure that 30.7% of respondents had
household incomes less than $ 20,000; for the population, we estimate 33.9%. Averaged
overall employees, we estimate more than half ( 56.2%) live in households earning less than
$ 39,000. People living in households earning less than $ 20k per year, are typically younger
people who have short employment duration.
11
Table 6: Household Income Distribution by Employer
Observed Sample Estimated Population
Household Income,
dollars
NPS YCS Park
partners
NPS YCS Park
partners
0 to 19,000 70 185 12 126 638 39
20,000 to 39,000 137 139 12 266 468 31
40,000 to 59,000 122 59 8 238 195 40
60,000 to 79,000 47 17 10 96 54 25
80,000 + 34 14 16 19 42 32
Total 410 414 58 745 1,397 167
Figure 3: Estimated Population Income Distribution, Percent in each Income Category
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Less than 20k 20 to 39 40 to 59 60 to 79 More than 80k
Household income, x $ 1,000
NPS YCS park partner
Whether employees work for NPS, YCS, or a park partner does affect their likely household
income. While not quite half of NPS ( 48.7%) and park partner ( 42.1) employees live in
households earning less than $ 40,000 per year, nearly 4 out of 5 ( 79.2%) of YCS employees
do so. This is primarily because of the much larger percentage of YCS employees who have
short employment duration as compared to NPS employees.
Employer and Workplace Location
The sample distributions are different than the population estimates for the distribution of
employees by employer. Respondents are distributed as 46% NPS, 48% YCS, and 6% park
partner employees. However, the estimated population distribution by employer is 34% NPS,
59% YCS, and 7% park partner.
1 2
The population estimates of workplace location are also different from the sample. The
majority of respondents— 58%— work in Yosemite Valley; the estimate of the total
population of Yosemite employees who work in the Valley is 70%. The next largest
employment location is El Portal ( 17% sample, 11% population), followed by Wawona ( 10%
sample, 8% population), and Tuolumne Meadows ( 5% sample, 7% sample). The remaining
10% of the sample and 4% of the population have workplaces spread throughout the park. No
other location is represented by more than 2% of respondents or 1% of the population.
The spatial distribution of employees of different employers is affected by estimating the
distribution of the population— by design of the weights. Both the sample and the population
estimates indicate that NPS employees are the most likely employees to work outside
Yosemite Valley. But the sample result is 64%, while the population estimate is that the
workplace of 51% of NPS employees is located outside the Valley. While 37% of the sample
of park partner employees and 20% of the sample of YCS employees work outside the
Valley the population estimates are 19% and 20% respectively. The “ out- of- Valley” NPS
employees are primarily working at El Portal, Wawona, and Tuolumne Meadows; “ out- of-
Valley” YCS employees are primarily located at Wawona and Tuolumne Meadows; and
“ out- of- Valley” park partner employees are primarily at El Portal and Crane Flat.
Daily, Hourly, and Seasonal Work Patterns
The estimated population distribution of daily and hourly work patterns is nearly identical to
the sample distribution. Therefore we focus on the population estimates of daily and hourly
works schedules. As we will show, this is not the case for seasonal employment patterns.
A Monday to Friday, 9 to 5 work week is not typical of summer employment in Yosemite
National Park. While many Yosemite employees do work a Monday to Friday workweek,
they are not in the majority. Thirty- five percent of the sample reports that they work Monday
through Friday; the population estimate is that 33% of all Yosemite employees work Monday
to Friday. These people are disproportionately more likely to be NPS employees. While NPS
employees are estimated to represent 34% of all Yosemite employees, they represent 49% of
employees who work Monday to Friday. While YCS employees are estimated to represent
59% of all employees, they represent only 43% of employees who work Monday to Friday.
The distribution of work start and end times are shown in Figures 4 and 5. In Figure 4, we
see that many respondents start work between 7: 00AM and 8: 30AM. In fact, we estimate that
65% of Yosemite employees start work during this time interval. Reported work start times
range from 2: 30AM to 11: 00PM.
13
Figure 4: Estimated Distribution of Work Start Times for the Population of Yosemite
Employees in 24- hour clock time, Percent
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Figure 5: Estimated Distribution of Work End Times for the Population of Yosemite
Employees in 24- hour clock time, Percent
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
In Figure 5, we see that most Yosemite employees end work between 16: 00 and 17: 30. This
time period defines the inter- quartile distance of the distribution. That is, it is the interval
between the 25th and 75th percentile— 50% of the sample ends work during this time interval,
25% end work sooner, and 25% end work later. Reported work end times span the whole 24-
hour day.
The distribution of seasonal employees poses some problems for this analysis. Only 193
respondents ( 20%) indicate they are seasonal employees. Almost all of these ( 98%) indicated
they were seasonal summer employees, as we would expect from the time frame in which the
survey was conducted. Most of the seasonal employees ( 59%) were NPS employees; only
36% were YCS employees. When we estimate the proportion of the Yosemite employee
population who are seasonal employees, our estimate declines to 17%. Further, the
1 4
population estimates indicate that 23% of NPS employees are seasonal and only 14% of YCS
employees are seasonal summer employees.
We believe this represents a shortfall in the percentage of the estimated employee population
that should be seasonal summer YCS employees. This shortfall might be explained by the
fact that the questionnaires were distributed to YCS employees near the end of the seasonal
summer YCS employment period. Some such employees may have already departed the park
and those departing soon after the questionnaires were distributed may have been less likely
to complete and return a questionnaire. As we noted in the introduction to this section, this
shortfall does not invalidate all possible analyses. It does mean that we believe our estimates
of the number of employees working and living in Yosemite Valley are too low.
Residence Location
The estimated distribution of residence locations of all Yosemite employees is summarized in
Table 7. The distributions for each employer are shown separately. Respondents’ residences
are concentrated in a few locations. We estimate almost three- fourths ( 74%) of Yosemite
employees live in either Yosemite Valley ( 46%), El Portal ( 17%), or the town of Mariposa
( 11%). An additional 15% of employees live in either Tuolumne Meadows ( 6%), Midpines
( 5%), or Wawona ( 4%). Most of the remaining 11% of employees are scattered in the other
small towns and rural areas bordering the western boundary of the park.
An estimated 83% of the employees who reside in Yosemite Valley are YCS employees.
However, in keeping with the relative absence of YCS summer seasonal employees in the
sample discussed above, we expect the true distribution of summer YCS employee
residences may be even more highly concentrated in Yosemite Valley.
Commute Trip Time and Distance
The estimated commute trip time and distance distributions are shown in Figure 6 and 7;
statistics are given in Table 8. The estimated population distributions and the measured
distributions of the sample are identical. The trip duration and trip distance distributions are
skewed toward commutes that are brief in duration and short in distance. Half of Yosemite
employees spend 15 minutes or less commuting to work, and travel 2 miles or less. The mean
commute trip duration is 26.56 minutes and the mean commute trip distance is 14.76 miles.
15
Table 7: Estimated Population Distribution of Residence Location of Yosemite
Employees by Employer
Location
NPS
YCS
Park
partner
Total
Yosemite Valley 157 963 46 1166
El Portal 261 109 58 428
Mariposa 166 103 9 278
Tuolumne Meadows 46 100 0 146
All Other 42 68 31 141
Midpines 61 44 17 123
Wawona 45 60 5 110
Other park 52 24 7 82
Oakhurst 20 30 1 51
Groveland 17 2 0 19
Figure 6: Estimated Distribution of One- Way Commute Time in minutes, Percent
0.05
0.10
0.15
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
1 6
Figure 7: Estimated Distribution of One- way Commute Distance in miles, Percent
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Table 8: Statistics for the Estimated One- Way Commute Time and Distance
Distributions
Quantiles Commute Time,
minutes
Commute Distance,
miles
maximum 100.0% 195.0 189.0
90.0% 63.6 45.0
quartile 75.0% 40.0 25.0
median 50.0% 15.0 2.0
quartile 25.0% 5.0 0.5
10.0% 2.0 0.0
minimum 0.0% 0.0 0.0
Moments
Mean 26.55 14.76
Std Deviation 49.52 20.78
Std Error Mean 0.98 0.67
N 960 961
Sum Weights 2567 2569
Note: Quantiles are interpreted as that percentage of the sample that has a particular value or less. For example,
the upper quartile ( the 75th percentile) of commute times is 40 minutes, meaning that 75% of the people in the
sample take 40 minutes or less to commute between home and work.
“ N” is the sample size, “ Sum Weights” is the estimated population size after the weights are applied.
The means are larger than the medians because there are a small number of people with very
long commutes. Many of these people “ commute” to work at the start of their work week,
stay near their workplace, then commute home at the end of the week. While this is not
typical commute behavior, we retain these people in the charts and statistics shown here. In
fact, at each major employment location, there are two distinct groups of people— those who
live close to their workplace and those who commute from some distance away. We will look
17
at these two types of commuters in the later sections that examine the four major
employment locales.
Commute Travel Modes
Employees were asked to tell us all the travel modes they used to commute to work. The
incidence of use of any single mode is summarized in Table 9; the use of multiple modes is
summarized in Table 10. In some cases, multiple modes may be used to complete any single
commute trip, or different modes may be used from day to day. The data shown are the
estimated data for the population. The differences between the sample measures and the
population estimates are 1) a slight reduction in the mode share of walking in the population
estimates in Table 9, and 2) we estimate that more people only cycle to work than only
carpool in Table 10 ( this order is reversed in the sample data). The first difference, again, is
consistent with our belief that summer seasonal YCS employees who are likely to live and
work in the Valley ( and thus are more likely to walk to work) are under- represented.
Table 9: Estimated Commute Travel Mode Shares for Yosemite Employees
Mode Number Percent1
Drive alone 1,335 52
Walk 654 25
Car or Van pool 504 20
Bicycle 441 17
Transit 215 8
Other 16 1
1. Totals more than 100% because multiple responses allowed.
The most commonly used mode of travel to work was driving alone in the employee’s own
vehicle. Over half of Yosemite employees report that driving alone in their own vehicle is a
mode they typically use. Reflecting the fact reported above regarding the large number of
employees who have very short commute distances ( and thus live and work at locations close
to each other), 25% report they walk to work, and 17% ride a bike.
Comparing Table 9 to Table 10, while we estimate 52% of Yosemite employees drive alone
sometimes, 35% commute to work only by driving alone. Combining driving alone with
carpooling is more common than only carpooling. While most people who walk to work only
walk, some may also drive alone, ride a bicycle, or take transit. Transit riders in general show
the greatest variety in their travel modes to work, combining transit use with all other modes.
While 8% of employees take transit to work, only 3% take only transit.
1 8
Table 10: Estimated Commute Travel Mode Shares, including Users of Single and
Multiple Modes
Mode[ s] Count Percent
Only Drive alone 833 35
Only Walk 600 25
Drive alone and Car/ vanpool 237 10
Only Bicycle 185 8
Only Car/ vanpool 175 7
Drive alone and walk 80 3
Bike and walk 72 3
Only Transit 67 3
Drive alone and bike 55 2
Transit, Drive alone, and Car/ vanpool 32 1
Transit and walk 24 1
Transit and Car/ vanpool 15 1
Transit and Drive alone 11 ~ 0
Transit and Bicycle 3 ~ 0
Based on population estimates, the most frequently cited transit service is the Yosemite
Valley shuttle bus— 63% of transit users report they use the shuttle. VIA is used by 22% of
transit riders, and the remaining transit riders use a Midpines commuter bus service operated
by YCS. This service is used by both NPS and YCS employees.
Few Yosemite employees commute to work in a vehicle provided by their employer. Only
6% of people who ever drive to work report they do so in a vehicle provide by their
employer. Similarly, only 3% of the people who ever carpool report that the vehicle they
carpool in is provided by their employer, and only 6% of people who ever ride a bicycle to
work do so on a bicycle provided by their employer.
Employee Parking
Among those employees who either drive alone or car/ vanpool to work, most indicate they
park wherever they are able. Only a few indicate they have a parking space reserved
especially for them. However, many do park in a location that they indicate is reserved for
employees in general. The population estimates of the percentages of people who park in
different types of locations are identical to the percentages measured by the sample. Among
those who drive alone to work, 56% state they park wherever they are able; 41% indicate
they park in a space or lot reserved for employees in general; 3% they have a space reserved
for them in particular.
19
Car- pooling or van pooling to work does not currently convey any advantages in terms of
reserved parking. Among those who carpool or vanpool, 56% state they park wherever they
are able, 39% park in a space or lot reserved for employees, and 5% park in a space reserved
for one of the carpool or vanpool members.
Most— 62%— of the people who ride a bicycle to work indicate they park it in a bike rack
near their workplace; 16% park their bicycle inside their workplace; the remaining 22% park
their bicycle wherever they are able.
Trips made in Conjunction with Commuting and Trips to Complete Errands
During the Day
Many employees make stops for other personal, familial, and social/ recreation activities in
conjunction with their commute trips. An estimated 57% of employees make such stops
during their commute trips. Among those who do make such stops, they tend to do so many
days a week. The mean number of days per week on which stops are made to complete other
activities is estimated to be 2.9; the median number of days is 3. One of five of these people
state they make such stops everyday they commute.
While most employees do occasionally make trips to accomplish personal errands during
their work shift, it is not a large majority. Data on the incidence of trips to accomplish
personal errands are summarized in Table 11. Fifty- six percent of employees are estimated to
make trips to accomplish personal business and errands during their work shift. Within this
group, just over half— 53%— make such trips at least a couple days a week, if not everyday.
The rest make such trips about once a week or once a month. Most of these trips are made by
bicycle ( 42%), though a nearly equal share of such trips ( 39%) are made by walking.
Thirteen percent are made on bicycle, and the remaining 7% are made by bus.
Table 11: Estimated Incidence of Trip Making to Accomplish Personal Business and
Errands
Level Count Percent
0. Never 1,109 44
1. Once a month 302 12
2. About once a week 352 14
3. A couple of times a week 500 17
4. Everyday 238 10
Travel for Work
As we described in the Introduction, travel for work consists of those trips employees must
undertake in the course of completing their work responsibilities which are in addition to
travel between their home and workplace. Most Yosemite employees— an estimated 57%—
make trips for work. Among those who do travel for work, 61% report that they make such
trips on a daily basis; 16%, weekly; and, 23% monthly. Whether an employee makes trips for
2 0
work depends on for whom they work. An estimated 81% of NPS employees make trips for
work; barely half as many ( 42%) of YCS employees do so.
The travel modes used to make these trips for work are summarized in Table 12. Most people
who make trips for work report doing so by motor vehicle. In contrast to commute trips, most
employees who travel for work indicate that employer- provided vehicles are available to
them for these trips. Three- fourths of employees who make trips for work report an
employer- provided vehicle is available to them to make such trips; most of the other one-fourth
report using their own vehicle.
Travel for work generates several vehicle trips in and out of the Valley. We estimate there
are 920 employees both work in Yosemite Valley and make trips for work. Of these, most
travel out of the Valley for at least some of their trips for work. Only 38% never travel out of
the Valley on their trips for work; 27% do so on a monthly basis; 24% weekly; and, 13%
daily. We estimate there are 442 employees who both make trips for work and do not work in
Yosemite Valley. Among this group, 18% never travel to the Valley for work; 42% travel to
the Valley for work on a monthly basis; 16%, on a weekly basis; and, 18% do so more than
once a week.
Table 12: Travel for Work Modes
Mode
Estimated number of employees
who travel for work
Estimated percent of employees
who travel for work1
Employer- provided vehicle 1,062 76
Own car or truck 379 27
Walk 326 23
Bicycle 163 12
Yosemite Valley shuttle 133 10
1. Totals more than 100% because multiple responses allowed.
Regardless of where in the park they work, of the 1,402 employees we estimate travel for
work, 56% never travel for work to destinations outside the park. Thirty percent travel for
work to destinations outside the park about once a month; 9% do so at least once a week.
Commute Travel Mode Alternatives
Employees who commute to work by driving alone were asked whether they would consider
using other travel modes to commute to work. Anyone who ever commuted by driving
alone— even if they sometimes already use other modes— was asked to respond. As shown
above in Table 9, 1,335 employees are estimated to drive alone ( as at least one of the modes
they use to travel to work).
Most such employees indicate they would be willing to consider commute alternatives: 35%
definitely would be willing; 25% would probably consider alternatives. Only 24% of the
employees who indicate that driving alone is one of the modes they use to commute to work
21
would definitely not be willing to consider alternative modes; 15% probably would not.
Those people who say they would consider an alternative travel mode are asked which
alternative mode they would most likely consider. We estimate that 47% would consider
carpooling and vanpooling; transit is the likely alternative by 29%; bicycling or walking is
the likely alternative of 24%.
2 2
Analysis
In this and following sections, we conduct more detailed analyses. In particular, several
aspects of commute travel mode and the alternatives people are willing to consider are
related to workplace and residence location. The ability of many employees to act on
commute alternatives is likely related not only to these location issues, but also patterns of
daily, weekly, and seasonal employment. Issues such as these are explored.
Employee Travel in Yosemite Valley
Commute Trips of Employees who both Live and Work in Yosemite Valley
We first examine employees who both live and work in Yosemite Valley. Both the observed
number of people ( from the sample) and the estimated number of such people are shown in
Table 13. While the survey counted 335 people who both live and work in Yosemite Valley
during August and September 1999, we estimate the actual number is likely more than three
times greater. Based on these estimates, YCS employs approximately 920 persons who both
live and work in Yosemite Valley during the summer. There are approximately 140 NPS and
45 park partner employees who both live and work in the Valley during the summer.
The estimate of the number of YCS employees who both live and work in the Valley are too
low when compared to other counts of YCS peak summer employment. According to data
provide in planning documents for the Park, YCS provides about 1,167 employee beds in
Yosemite Valley during the peak season. 1 The estimates in Table 13 may however be a
reasonably accurate representation of the residence/ employment location of YCS employees
at the time of the survey. YCS employment peaks in the last week of July and first week of
August. The questionnaire was not distributed until the second week of August. Thus, not all
beds may be filled even at peak and some YCS summer seasonal employees would have
already left their employer by the time the survey was conducted. During periods of lower
visitation, such as winter, YCS currently provides about 800 employee beds in the Valley.
As expected, people who both live and work in Yosemite Valley have commute trips that are
short in duration and distance. The distribution of commute trip duration is plotted in Figure
8 and described by the statistics in Table 14. Statistics for the distribution of commute
distance are shown in Table 15. In both tables, the reported statistics are based on the
weighted data. The “ N” is the observed sample size. The “ Sum Weights” is the estimate of
total employees after the weights are applied.
1 The bed counts are taken from the Draft Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management
Plan/ EIS. pp. III- 215.
23
Table 13: Number of Employees who both Live and Work in Yosemite Valley
Observed Sample Estimated Population
Employer Count Percent Count Percent
NPS 51 15.2 142 12.8
YCS 274 81.8 921 83.0
park partner 10 3.0 45 4.1
Total 335 1109
Figure 8: Commute Trip Duration, in Minutes, for Employees who both Live and Work
in Yosemite Valley, Percent
0.10
0.20
0.30
0 10 20 30 40 50
The longest commute trip duration among employees who both live and work in Yosemite
Valley is 45 minutes, but most report brief commutes. Half the sample reports it takes five
minutes or less to travel to work ( 50th percentile ( median) = 5.00); three- fourths report it
takes them 15 minutes or less. The mean commute trip duration is skewed upward from the
median by a few people— the mean is just a bit over seven minutes. The longest one- way
commute distance is four miles. Half the sample reports their commute distance is one- half
mile or less. The mean commute distance is three- quarters of a mile.
2 4
Table 14: Statistics of the Distribution of Commute Trip Duration, in Minutes, of
Employees who both Live and Work in Yosemite Valley.
Quantiles Minutes
maximum 100.0% 45.00
90.0% 15.00
quartile 75.0% 10.00
median 50.0% 5.00
quartile 25.0% 3.00
10.0% 2.00
minimum 0.0% 0.00
Moments
Mean 7.40
Standard Deviation 11.40
Standard Error Mean 0.35
N 329.00
Sum Weights 1087.95
Table 15: Statistics of the Commute Trip Length, in Miles, of Employees who both Live
and Work in Yosemite Valley.
Quantiles Miles
maximum 100.0% 4.00
90.0% 2.00
quartile 75.0% 1.00
median 50.0% 0.50
quartile 25.0% 0.10
10.0% 0.00
minimum 0.0% 0.00
Moments
Mean 0.77
Standard Deviation 1.44
Standard Error Mean 0.04
N 329.00
Sum Weights 1087.95
As we would expect from the generally very short commute trip distances, walk and bicycle
are the most frequently used commute modes. The data shown in Table 16 show that nearly
half ( 46.2% of the weighted count) list walking as their sole mode of commuting to work;
another 13.5% list it as one of their commute modes. Seventeen percent list bicycle as their
sole commute mode; another 4% list it as one of their commute modes ( not counting those
already counted as either walking or cycling). While it is not surprising that relatively few
25
drive to work, it is somewhat surprising that only about 7.5% of employees who both live
and work in Yosemite Valley use transit, either solely or in addition to other modes.
Table 16: Commute Mode Distribution of Employees who both Live and Work in
Yosemite Valley.
Observed Sample Estimated Population
Mode[ s] Count Percent Count Percent
Walk only 138 47 451 46.2
Bicycle only 50 17 168 17.1
Drive alone only 38 13 125 12.8
Bike and walk 19 7 61 6.2
Drive alone and walk 13 4 46 4.7
Transit only 12 4 40 4.1
Drive alone and bike 11 4 36 3.7
Transit and walk 7 2 24 2.4
Drive alone and Car/ vanpool 4 1 13 1.3
Car/ vanpool only 1 0 3 0.3
Transit and Bicycle 1 0 3 0.3
Transit and Carpool 1 0 3 0.3
Transit and Drive alone 1 0 3 0.3
Total 292 1021.8
Commute Trips of People Who Work in, but Reside outside, Yosemite Valley
Both the observed ( sample) and the estimated number of such employees are shown in Table
17. About one- fifth the sample works in the Valley, but resides outside the Valley. There are
an estimated 299 YCS employees in Yosemite Valley who live outside the Valley, 285 such
NPS employees, and 96 such park partner employees. The distribution of their commute trip
duration is plotted in Figure 9 and described by the statistics in Table 18. Statistics for the
distribution of commute distance are shown in Table 19. In both tables, the reported statistics
are based on the weighted data.
2 6
Table 17: Number of Employees who Work in Yosemite Valley, but Live Outside the
Valley
Observed Sample Estimated Population
Employer Count Percent Count Percent
NPS 102 48 285 41.9
YCS 89 42 299 44.0
park partner 22 10 96 14.1
Total 335 679
Figure 9: Commute Trip Duration, in minutes, for Employees who Work in, but Reside
outside, Yosemite Valley, Percent
0.10
0.20
0.30
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
The longest reported commute trip duration is over three hours. Some employees maintain
permanent residences far from the Valley, stay in the Valley during their work- week, then
“ commute” home on weekends. While these people are not “ commuters” in the usual sense,
we retain them here simply so that such behavior is represented in this report. 2
We estimate that half the employees who commute to jobs in Yosemite Valley take 45
minutes or less to travel to work ( median = 45 minutes); the mean commute trip duration is
skewed upwards to 56 minutes by the relatively few people with very long commute trip
times. The longest reported one- way commute distance is 189 miles, but 90% of employees
who work in Yosemite Valley, but live outside the Valley, are estimated to commute
distances of 45 miles or less. The mean estimated commute distance is 35 miles.
2 The effect of such a few extreme outliers is to inflate the value of the estimates of means and standard
deviations. Another reason that the mean and standard deviation are poor measures of commute time and
distance is that for every employment center, commute times and distances are distributed in a bi- modal or
multi- modal fashion. That is, they will show two or more distinct peaks, rather than a uniform shape. Such
multi- modal distributions typically are not well described by measures like the mean. For these reasons, we
provide the quantiles, e. g., the median.
27
Table 18: Statistics of the Distribution of Commute Trip Duration, in Minutes, of
Employees who Work in, but Reside outside, Yosemite Valley
Quantiles Minutes
maximum 100.0% 195.00
90.0% 90.00
quartile 75.0% 75.00
median 50.0% 45.00
quartile 25.0% 35.00
10.0% 20.00
minimum 0.0% 20.00
Moments
Mean 56.30
Standard Deviation 50.16
Standard Error Mean 2.00
N 198
Sum Weights 631.03
Table 19: Statistics of the Commute Trip Length, in Miles, of Employees who Work in,
but Reside outside, Yosemite Valley
Quantiles Miles
maximum 100.0% 189.00
90.0% 55.00
quartile 75.0% 50.00
median 50.0% 23.50
quartile 25.0% 15.00
10.0% 14.00
minimum 0.0% 11.70
Moments
Mean 34.97
Standard Deviation 45.52
Standard Error Mean 1.81
N 198
Sum Weights 631.03
Both commute trip duration and distance distributions are “ lumpy” or multi- modal rather
than smooth. This is consistent with the actual distribution of potential residence locations,
2 8
which are concentrated in and around El Portal, Midpines, and Mariposa. In fact, nearly 80%
of this group report they reside in one of these three places ( El Portal, 43.4%; Midpines,
11.3%; and, Mariposa, 23.8%).
The long commute trips preclude the use of walking and cycling as commute modes. All
commuters in this group commute by motorized modes, and most by only driving alone. The
data on commute modes is shown in Table 20. Over half of employees who work in
Yosemite Valley, but reside elsewhere— 52%— commute to work only by driving alone;
another 29% list driving alone as one of their commute modes. Among those who combine
driving alone with other modes of travel, carpooling is the most frequent other choice.
Table 20: Commute Mode Distribution of Employees who Work in, but Reside Outside,
Yosemite Valley.
Observed Sample Estimated Population
Mode[ s] Count Percent Count Percent
Drive alone only 100 51.8 317 51.6
Drive alone and Car/ vanpool 47 24.4 147 24.0
Car/ vanpool 28 14.5 89 14.5
Transit, Drive alone, and
Carpool
8 4.1 26 4.3
Transit 4 2.0 14 2.3
Transit and Carpool 3 1.6 10 1.6
Transit and Drive alone 2 1.0 6 0.9
Drive alone and bike 1 0.5 5 0.7
Bicycle 0 0 0 0
Bike and walk 0 0 0 0
Drive alone and walk 0 0 0 0
Transit and Bicycle 0 0 0 0
Transit and walk 0 0 0 0
Walk 0 0 0 0
Total 193 614
Total Employee Light- Duty Vehicle Movements in Yosemite Valley
Based on the responses to questions regarding commute travel, personal errands, and travel
for work, we can calculate an index of the number of light- duty vehicle ( LDV— cars and
trucks) trips by employees into and around Yosemite Valley. The index is proportional to the
number of people per day making trips in LDVs to, and within, Yosemite Valley. We cannot
calculate the actual number of trips because we do not have data on the incidence per day of
some trip types.
The components of the index are as follows:
Employees who both live and work in Yosemite Valley;
• Commute trips
• Trips made in conjunction with commute trips
29
• Trips to accomplish personal business during the work shift
Employees who live outside Yosemite Valley but work in Yosemite Valley;
• Commute trips
• Trips made in conjunction with commute trips
• Trips to accomplish personal business during the work shift
Trips for work by all employees in Yosemite Valley; and
Trips for work made to Yosemite Valley by employees who work outside the Valley
Commute trips are weighted singly ( that is we don’t multiply by two to account for both the
morning and evening trip). At this point, we assume that trips for personal errands, trips for
non- commute stops made during the commute trip, and trips for work are each made once on
any day that such a trip or stop is made. The index does not count any trips by employees that
are not in some fashion connected to their employment. For example, we have no data on
trips that employees who live in the Valley make on days they are not working. The results
are weighted according to the weights from Table 3.
The index is summarized in Table 17. Based on the available data and the assumptions
discussed above and presented in the table, commuting to work is the single largest category
of LDV trip, but still appears to account for less than half of all the motor vehicle trips made
by Yosemite employees in Yosemite Valley. The index for commute trips made by LDV is
between 582 and 645. While most of these trips are made by employees commuting into the
Valley, as much as 36% of LDV commute trips are made by employees who both live and
work in Yosemite Valley. Still, it appears that employees who both live and work in the
Valley make about half as many trips by LDV to commute, to make personal trips associated
with commuting, and to run personal errands during the day, as do employees who commute
from outside the Valley.
The index for personal errands and trips made in conjunction with the commute trip sums to
about 300. As noted below the table though, it is likely that the number of such trips to
destinations in the Valley is much lower.
While employees who both live and work in the Valley are less likely to commute to work by
LDV, they are as likely to make trips for work by LDV. In total, there are approximately 406
people who work in Yosemite Valley making trips for work by LDV on any given day. Some
of these people make only one such trip a day, others ( such as law enforcement officers)
make trips throughout the day. Despite supplementary data collection efforts, we were unable
to obtain estimates of daily trips for work for a large enough sample of Valley employees to
provide a more accurate estimate of the daily number of LDV trips for work.
The calculation of the daily index relies on a uniform distribution of trips. That is, all
respondents who indicate they make trips of a certain type once a week or once a month, are
assumed to make those trips uniformly throughout the week or month. Thus, if 50 people
make a personal errand trip once per week , we assume that results in an average of 10 such
trips a day. It may be that for some trip types the trips are not uniformly distributed. That is,
most employees reporting making a trip once a month may in fact all be making that trip on
3 0
the same day. In the extreme ( and implausible) case that all employees make all types of trips
on the same day, the total index increases from a maximum value of 1,445 to 1,986.
Table 21: Index of Daily Employee- Related LDV Movements in Yosemite Valley
Light- Duty Vehicle Trip Type
Index of Daily
Trips
Total for Employees who both live and work in Yosemite Valley 309
Commute trips1 208
Trips made in conjunction with commute trips 65
Trips to accomplish personal business during the work shift 36
Total for Employees who live outside Yosemite Valley but work in
Yosemite Valley2
550 to 655
Commute trips1, 2 374 to 437
Trips made in conjunction with commute trips2, 3 143 to 174
Trips to accomplish personal business during the work shift2 33 to 44
Total Employees making trips for work among those who work in
the Valley
406
Total Employees making Trips for Work to Yosemite Valley
among those who work outside Yosemite Valley4
42 to 75
Total Index 1,307 to 1,445
1. All carpools are assumed to be made up of exactly two people.
2. Range depends on assumptions about how often people who both drive alone and carpool to work chose to do
either. The greater the incidence of carpooling, the smaller the number of vehicle trips.
3. It is likely that most, if not all, of the trips made in conjunction with commuting by people who live outside
the Valley are made to locations outside the Valley. For example, if they stop to buy groceries, it seems
plausible that those people who live in Mariposa would stop at a grocery store in Mariposa, not at a store in the
Valley. Contrary to this, the trip estimates shown here assume all stops made in conjunction with commuting
are made in the Valley. Thus this row in particular represents an upper boundary on the number of LDV trips
made for this purpose.
4. Range depends on how often employees who make trips for work to Yosemite Valley “ more than once a
week” actually make such trips. The lower number is based on two trips per week, the upper number is based on
three trips per week.
Commute Travel to El Portal, Wawona, and Tuolumne Meadows
Here we examine the commute travel to El Portal, Wawona, and Tuolumne Meadows. No
location other than Yosemite Valley, El Portal, Wawona, or Tuolumne Meadows accounts
for more the 1% of total employment. Because of the small sample sizes at even the three
locations reported here, we repeat our caution that the estimated total counts must be
regarded as approximations. However, several consistent trends are observed. Since these
trends are also in accordance with what we know about the distribution of potential residence
locations and available commute options at each location, our confidence in the results in this
section is increased.
31
El Portal
El Portal is the second largest employment and residential center in the park. The observed
( sample) and estimated numbers of employees by employer at El Portal are shown in Table
22. The workforce employed here is predominately made up of NPS employees— we
estimate that 92% of the employees at El Portal work for NPS.
Table 22: Number of Employees who Work at El Portal
Observed Sample Estimated Population
Employer Count Percent Count Percent
NPS 142 0.89 263 92.0
park partner 17 0.11 15 5.2
YCS 1 0.01 8 2.8
Total 160 286
Most of the employees at El Portal live elsewhere. Thirty- five percent do live in El Portal,
but most live in Mariposa ( 38%) or Midpines ( 15%). Only 3% commute down from
Yosemite Valley; another 4% commute from Wawona or other parts of the park. The
remainder commute for towns further west than Mariposa along State Routes 140 or 49.
This split between employees living nearby in El Portal versus further away in other
locations is reflected in the commute trip duration and distance data. The distribution of
commute trip duration in Figure 10 shows distinct peaks ( or “ modes”). These correspond to
residences located in El Portal, Midpines, and Mariposa. Those people living in El Portal
report the duration of their commute trips is 10 minutes or less; those living near Midpines
and Mariposa report their commute trips take 30 to 45 minutes.
Figure 10: Commute Trip Duration, in minutes, for Employees who Work in El Portal,
Percent
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
3 2
The distinction between “ local” and “ long- distance” commuters can be seen in the large
difference in the value of the median commute duration and the 25th percentile commute
duration in Table 23 and commute distance in Table 24. For example, 25% of employees
( 25th percentile, or “ lower quartile”) at El Portal report commute trip duration of only 5
minutes or less. In order to include half the employees ( 50th percentile), we must jump up to a
commute trip duration of 30 minutes. The gap between the lower quartile commute distance
and the median commute distance is from 1.5 miles to 22.5. miles.
The data on commute travel modes for employees at El Portal are shown in Table 25. Despite
the fact over one- third of employees at El Portal report their residence is also at El Portal,
only 8% report they commute to work by walking or cycling. This is in contrast to Yosemite
Valley, where two- thirds of people who both live and work in the Valley report they
commute to work by walking or cycling.
This difference can be seen in the distributions of commute trip duration and distance
between the Yosemite Valley and El Portal. The median commute trip duration of people
who both live and work in El Portal is about the same as for those people who both live and
work in Yosemite Valley ( medianEl Portal = medianYosemite Valley = 5.0 minutes; meanEl Portal =
5.4 minutes, meanYosemite Valley = 7.2 minutes). However, the people at El Portal are traveling
twice as far in this amount of time as are those in Yosemite Valley ( medianEl Portal = 1.0 miles,
medianYosemite Valley = 0.5 miles; meanEl Portal = 1.5 miles, meanYosemite Valley = 0.8 miles). The
choice of higher speed modes is likely dictated by the fact that the residential areas of El
Portal are farther from employment locations than is the case in Yosemite Valley. Also,
while the Valley floor is level, there is a hill to climb to the residential facilities at El Portal
that may serve as a barrier to cycling and walking.
Table 23: Statistics of the Distribution of Commute Trip Duration of Employees who
Work in El Portal.
Quantiles Minutes
maximum 100.0% 90.00
90.0% 50.00
quartile 75.0% 45.00
median 50.0% 30.00
quartile 25.0% 5.00
10.0% 3.00
minimum 0.0% 1.00
Moments
Mean 28.51
Standard Deviation 26.27
Standard Error Mean 1.56
N 159
Sum Weights 284.13
33
Table 24: Statistics of the Commute Trip Length, in miles, of Employees who Work in
El Portal
Quantiles Miles
maximum 100.0% 91.00
90.0% 35.90
quartile 75.0% 32.00
median 50.0% 22.50
quartile 25.0% 1.50
10.0% 1.00
minimum 0.0% 0.00
Moments
Mean 19.31
Standard Deviation 22.14
Standard Error Mean 1.31
N 160
Sum Weights 285.98
Faster, motorized travel modes are the dominate commute travel modes to El Portal. Most
employees at El Portal commute to work only by driving alone ( 59%). Another 37%
commute by some combination of carpooling, driving alone, and transit. However, transit use
is very limited. Only 6% of the people working at El Portal report ever using transit to
commute to work. All together, driving alone and carpooling are the modes used by 90% of
employees who work at El Portal.
3 4
Table 25: Commute Mode Distribution of Employees who Work at El Portal.
Unweighted Sample Estimated Population
Mode[ s] Count Percent Count Percent
Drive alone only 93 60.4 172 62.2
Car/ vanpool only 23 14.9 42 15.1
Drive alone and Car/ vanpool 21 13.6 36 13.0
Walk only 6 3.9 9 3.3
Bicycle only 2 1.3 4 1.3
Drive alone and walk 2 1.3 4 1.3
Drive alone and bike 2 1.3 3 1.0
Transit only 2 1.3 3 1.0
Bike and walk 1 0.6 2 0.7
Transit and Drive alone 1 0.6 2 0.7
Transit, Drive alone, and
Carpool
1 0.6 1 0.3
Transit and Bicycle 0 0 0 0
Transit and Carpool 0 0 0 0
Transit and walk 0 0 0 0
Total 154 276
Wawona
Wawona is the third largest employment center. According to the estimated population
counts in Table 26, there are approximately 250 Yosemite employees working at Wawona.
Two- thirds of these employees work for YCS ( 66.7%); most of the remainder work for the
Park Service ( 30.8%); and the remaining few ( 2.6%) work for a park partner. We note that
for Yosemite Valley and El Portal, the original sample reproduced the correct distribution of
the population of employees by employer. Wawona is the first place we observe that
weighting the sample produces a substantially different picture of employment. The original
sample indicates a nearly 50/ 50 split in employment between NPS and YCS. The population
estimates reproduce the known distribution, which is approximately a 33/ 66 NPS/ YCS split.
35
Table 26: Number of Employees who Work at Wawona
Observed Sample Estimated Population
Employer Count Percent Count Percent
NPS 47 50.5 60 30.8
park partner 2 2.2 5 2.6
YCS 44 47.3 130 66.7
Total 93 195
The distribution of commute trip duration ( shown in Figure 11 and summarized in Table 27)
and commute trip distance ( summarized in Table 28) show a sharp distinction in the
commute travel times and distance between those who live at Wawona and those who live
elsewhere. This is seen in the large difference in values of the median ( 50th percentile) and
the upper quartile ( 75th percentile). Half the employees at Wawona report commute trip
duration of 15 minutes or less. In order to include 75% of employees, we have to jump up to
45 minutes. Half the sample reports their commute distance is 3 miles or less. The 75th
percentile jumps up to 26 miles. On average, those who live and work at Wawona commute a
distance of 1.3 miles and travel for just over 8 minutes. Those who work at Wawona but live
elsewhere commute an average of 29.3 miles, and travel an average of 47 minutes.
As at El Portal, commute travel to Wawona is dominated by automobile based travel modes.
The commute mode data in Table 29 show that 59% of employees in Wawona commute to
work only by driving alone. Including those other employees who either only carpool or both
drive alone and carpool, a total of 82.6% of employees at Wawona commute by automobile.
Those people with shorter commute distances do walk or cycle to work. A total of 12.2%
percent of employees walk, cycle, or both. Wawona commuters do not have transit options.
Figure 11: Commute Trip Duration, in Minutes, for Employees who Work in Wawona,
Percent
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
3 6
Table 27: Statistics of the Distribution of Commute Trip Duration, in Minutes, of
Employees who Work in Wawona.
Quantiles minutes
maximum 100.0% 90
90.0% 60
quartile 75.0% 45
median 50.0% 15
quartile 25.0% 5
10.0% 5
minimum 0.0% 0
Moments
Mean 28.61
Standard Deviation 34.03
Standard Error Mean 2.433
N
Sum Weights 195.04
Table 28: Statistics of the Commute Trip Length, in Miles, of Employees who Work in
Wawona
Quantiles miles
maximum 100.0% 75
90.0% 42
quartile 75.0% 26
median 50.0% 3
quartile 25.0% 1
10.0% 0
minimum 0.0% 0
Moments
Mean 16.12
Standard Deviation 26.40
Standard Error Mean 1.89
N 93
Sum Weights 195.04
37
Table 29: Commute Mode Distribution of Employees who Work at Wawona.
Observed Sample Estimated Population
Mode[ s] Count Percent Count Percent
Drive alone only 54 64.3 103 59.0
Drive alone and Car/ vanpool 9 10.7 24 13.8
Car/ vanpool only 6 7.1 17 9.8
Walk only 4 4.8 12 6.7
Bicycle only 4 4.8 8 4.8
Drive alone and walk 4 4.8 7 3.8
Drive alone and bike 2 2.4 4 2.4
Bike and walk 1 1.2 1 0.7
Transit only 0 0 0 0
Transit and Bicycle 0 0 0 0
Transit and Carpool 0 0 0 0
Transit and Drive alone 0 0 0 0
Transit and walk 0 0 0 0
Transit, Drive alone, and
Carpool
0 0 0 0
Total 84 177
Tuolumne Meadows
Tuolumne Meadows is the fourth largest employment center in the park. The sample counts
and weighted estimates of employees for each employer are shown in Table 30. The
distribution of employees by employer at Tuolumne Meadows based on the population
estimates is very different from the sample profile— even more so than at Wawona. The
population estimates correctly reproduce the known distribution of employees by employer,
with the exception that there is no way for the weighted data to represent park partner
employees since no park partner employee from Tuolumne Meadows returned a
questionnaire. This discrepancy has little impact on the results though, since there are so few
park partners employed at Tuolumne Meadows. Counts provided by the partners indicate
there are only 5 such employees.
Table 30: Number of Employees who Work at Tuolumne Meadows
Observed Sample Estimated Population
Employer Count Percent Count Percent
NPS 34 69.4 50 28.6
park partner 0 0.0 01 0.0
YCS 15 30.6 125 71.4
Total 49 175
1. The count of park partner employees provided by partners themselves is 5. The weighted estimate must be
zero since the number of returned questionnaires from park partner employees at Tuolumne Meadows was zero.
3 8
The commute trip duration distribution for people working at Tuolumne Meadows is shown
in Figure 12 and summarized in Table 31. Their commute trip distance distribution is
summarized in Table 32. The distribution of commute trip duration and distance at Tuolumne
Meadows is similar in general to the other locations, if more strongly skewed towards both
very short and very long commutes times and distances. Half this group reports it takes them
two minutes or less to commute to work; three- fourths report it takes 16 minutes or less. Half
the group reports their commute to work is one- tenth of a mile or less. In addition to working
at Tuolumne Meadows, these people all live there.
Among the 25% of employees who live more than 1.25 miles from work and take longer than
16 minutes to commute, all live in Yosemite Valley, El Portal, Midpines, or Mariposa. They
live up to 100 miles from Tuolumne Meadows and can travel for as long as two hours to
reach their workplace.
For distributions that are this strongly bi- modal, the mean values are particularly misleading.
While the mean commute trip duration shown in Table 31 is approximately 25 minutes, we
see from Figure 12 that almost no one actually has a 25 minute commute— most commute
trips to Tuolumne Meadows take either much shorter or much longer.
Figure 12: Commute Trip Duration, in minutes, for Employees who Work in Tuolumne
Meadows, Percent
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
39
Table 31: Statistics of the Distribution of Commute Trip Duration, in Minutes, of
Employees who Work in Tuolumne Meadows.
Quantiles minutes
maximum 100.0% 120
90.0% 120
quartile 75.0% 16
median 50.0% 2
quartile 25.0% 1
10.0% 0
minimum 0.0% 0
Moments
Mean 23.62
Standard Deviation 81.65
Standard Error Mean 6.17
N 49
Sum Weights 175.00
Table 32: Statistics of the Commute Trip Length, in Miles, of Employees who Work in
Tuolumne Meadows.
Quantiles miles
maximum 100.0% 100.00
90.0% 75.00
quartile 75.0% 1.25
median 50.0% 0.10
quartile 25.0% 0.00
10.0% 0.00
minimum 0.0% 0.00
Moments
Mean 9.57
Standard Deviation 49.77
Standard Error Mean 3.76
N 49
Sum Weights 175.00
Because most employees at Tuolumne Meadows have short commutes, we observe a high
portion of commutes made by walking and cycling. The commute mode data are shown
below in Table 33. About 61% of employees at Tuolumne Meadows commute to work by
4 0
walking, cycling, or both— the vast majority of these by walking. Most long distance
commutes to Tuolumne Meadows are made solely by driving alone, though a few long
distance commuters combine car pooling with driving alone. There appear to be few
employees who combine use the shuttle between Yosemite Valley and Tuolumne Meadows
with driving. ( This shuttle is not intended primarily for employees, but for tourists.)
Table 33: Commute Mode Distribution of Employees who Work at Tuolumne
Meadows.
Unweighted Observed Estimated Population
Mode[ s] Count Percent Count Percent
Walk only 24 53.3 90 58.0
Drive alone only 9 20.0 27 17.4
Drive alone and walk 5 11.1 21 13.6
Drive alone and Car/ vanpool 1 2.2 8 5.4
Bike and walk 2 4.4 3 1.9
Bicycle only 1 2.2 1 0.6
Car/ vanpool only 1 2.2 1 0.6
Drive alone and bike 1 2.2 1 0.6
Transit, Drive alone, and
Carpool
1 2.2 1 0.6
Transit only 0 0 0 0
Transit and Bicycle 0 0 0 0
Transit and Carpool 0 0 0 0
Transit and Drive alone 0 0 0 0
Transit and walk 0 0 0 0
Total 45 155
Employee Commute Alternatives
The current use of different commute travel modes by the respondents, including alternatives
to driving alone, has been described in the section above in which we describe the sample.
Here, we further examine the responses to alternative commute modes of those people who
currently commute to work by driving alone. People who ever commute by driving alone
account for about 52% of Yosemite employees; 35% of Yosemite employees commute to
work only by driving alone. We asked the sub- set of people ever drive alone to work whether
they are willing to consider alternative travel modes. Their responses are summarized in
Table 34.
Only 24.3% of those who ever drive alone to work adamantly refuse to consider alternatives
to driving alone. If we exclude those people who already use other modes in addition to
driving alone, we see that there is slightly more resistance to alternatives among those who
41
only drive alone to work. The percentage of who will not consider any alternatives is higher
among those who only drive alone to work— 28.5%. Still, even among those who only drive
alone to work, 60% are favorably inclined to consider alternatives to driving alone to work.
Table 34: Willingness of Employees who Drive Alone to Consider Alternative Modes
Response
Observed
Sample
Percent Estimated
Population
Percent
No, I would definitely not consider
alternatives to driving alone
117 23.3 298 24.3
Probably no 77 15.3 194 15.8
Possibly yes. 125 24.9 302 24.6
Yes, I would definitely consider an
alternative to driving alone
184 36.6 434 35.4
Total 503 1228
Reasons why Drive- alone Commuters will not Consider Alternative Commute Modes
We proceed by presenting the reasons why some people who drive alone are resistant to
commute mode alternatives. We then turn our attention to those who say they are willing to
consider alternatives. We present the types of alternatives they are willing to consider and
what might be done to encourage them to actually begin to use these alternatives.
Those 117 people who both drive alone to work and state they would not consider commute
mode alternatives were asked to provide up to three reasons why they felt committed to
driving alone to work. Their responses are summarized in Table 37. These responses are not
weighted.
The most frequently cited reason that people were unwilling to consider alternatives to
driving alone is the need to fulfill personal, familial, and social obligations either on the way
to work, or more typically, after work. This reason is both the first most likely response and
the most likely response when added across all three possible responses. Other common
responses related to this idea are “ Independence, convenience of own car” and “ Unable or
unwilling to rely on coordinating with others.”
In aggregate though, work schedules are an even more frequently cited reason for not
considering an alternative to driving alone. A combined 44% stated that either their work
shift was too early or too late, or that their work hours were too variable to allow them to use
an alternate to driving alone.
A fairly large number of people who commute solely by driving alone ( but a small number of
all Yosemite employees) state that their particular vehicle was assigned to them, and that
their job responsibilities included such things as emergency response and patrol duties. Some
of these people report that they are essentially on duty the moment they enter their vehicle.
4 2
Other than the fixed schedule of transit and carpooling ( which is implied in many responses),
other perceived characteristics of some alternatives, for example travel time and cost, are
cited by very few people as reasons why they prefer to drive alone.
Table 35: Reasons Why Alternative Commute Travel Modes Would Not be Considered,
number of people providing each reason.
Reason First
Reason
Second
Reason
Third
Reason
Total
Personal, family obligations after work 17 12 12 41
Work shift ( too late, too early) 14 10 4 28
Work schedule varies 16 6 4 26
Vehicle assignment— ranger vehicle, patrol
vehicle, etc.
11 11 1 23
Independence, convenience of own car 6 7 8 21
No one with whom to carpool 6 7 3 16
Time to myself 8 4 2 14
Unable/ unwilling to rely on coordinating with
others
2 2 4 8
Alternatives to driving take too long 5 1 1 7
Preferred alternative not available— no bus
service, no bike paths, etc.
0 4 3 7
Safety ( personal safety, drive due to darkness) 4 0 2 6
Weather 1 2 2 5
Residence too far from work 3 0 1 4
My vehicle is too small 1 2 0 3
Too much stuff, or specific equipment or tools
to transport
1 2 0 3
Alternatives too expensive 1 0 1 2
Preferred Commute Alternatives among those Who Would Consider An Alternative
Here we examine those people who commute to work by driving alone at least sometimes
and who would consider an alternative to driving alone.
The travel mode cited by most of these people as their preferred alternative to driving alone
is carpool/ vanpool. As shown in Table 36, nearly half ( 47%) of those who showed an
inclination to consider an alternative to driving alone chose carpool or vanpool as the
alternative they are most likely to consider.
Table 36: Preferred Alternative Commute Travel Mode
Preferred Alternative
Travel Mode
Count
( Sample)
Percent Estimate
( Population)
Percent
43
Carpool or vanpool 175 47.7 413 47.0
Bus 106 28.9 252 28.7
Bicycle 62 16.9 153 17.4
Walk 24 6.5 61 7.0
Total 367 879
Since some of these people already use other modes ( in addition to driving alone) to travel to
work, we compare these people to those who only drive alone. The cross- classification of
preferred alternative commute travel mode by current modes is shown in Table 37.
It appears as if current experience with alternatives to driving alone shape the preferred
commute alternative for all alternatives except possibly transit. Among those who already
use a bike or walk, in addition to driving alone, 53% choose bike or walk as their preferred
commute alternative. Carpooling is the favored alternative to driving alone of 68% of those
who already carpool.
It is difficult to draw any conclusions about the preferred alternative of those who already use
transit, in part because there are so few such people. The available data suggests that among
those who currently commute by either driving alone or transit, carpooling is most frequently
cited as the preferred alternative. However, people with experience with driving alone, transit
and carpooling, overwhelmingly choose transit as their preferred alternative.
Among those who currently only drive alone, carpooling or vanpooling is the most frequently
cited preferred alternative. But, these alternatives are not runaway favorites. Forty- five
percent of those who now only drive alone cite carpooling or vanpooling as their preferred
alternative; 32% cite transit; and 23%, walking or cycling.
4 4
Table 37: Preferred Alternative Mode by Current Commute Travel Modes
Current Commute Mode[ s] Most Preferred Alternative Mode
Count
Row Percentage
Bike or
Walk
Car or
Vanpool
Transit
Total
Drive alone, only 126 251 181 558
22.60 44.97 32.44
Drive alone, and bike or walk 44 28 11 83
52.71 33.81 13.48
Drive alone and Car/ vanpool 10 127 50 187
5.18 67.98 26.84
Drive Alone and Transit 3 6 2 11
31.13 51.71 17.16
Drive alone, and Transit or Car/ Vanpool 0 3 12 15
0.00 18.33 81.67
Total 183 414 257 853
Test ChiSquare Prob> ChiSq
Likelihood Ratio 110.661 <. 0001
Pearson 110.861 <. 0001
Some of the variation in whether people choose motorized or non- motorized alternatives is
explained by where they currently live and work. As shown in Table 38, people who live and
work in different places are far more likely to suggest motorized modes— and automobile
based modes in particular— as their most favored alternative to commuting by driving alone.
Of the estimated 622 people who drive alone to work ( and possibly use other modes), who
would consider an alternative to driving alone, and who live and work in different places,
60% choose carpooling as their preferred alternative, 36% choose transit, and 5% choose
walking or cycling. Some of those in this situation who say they would like to walk or bike
are not in a position to do so without a change in work or housing locations. Among those
who both live and work at El Portal, Yosemite Valley, or Wawona, the preferred alternative
of most is walking or cycling.
In general, it is possible to estimate a single model that contains more than one explanatory
variable, i. e., we could estimate a model that expresses the preferred commute alternative as
a function of both current commute modes and workplace/ residence location. As a practical
matter though, there are too few transit riders for us to estimate a valid model. Based on
Tables 37 and 38, we conclude that current conditions— commute travel modes, residence
location, and workplace location— are important determinants of people’s preferred
alternative to driving alone. We are unable to determine which— location or mode— matters
most, and certainly, the two are related. For example, employees at Wawona cannot have
experience with transit, and those who live and work at the same location prefer to walk or
ride a bike. Overall, it appears as if most Yosemite employees who now drive alone to work
45
are willing to consider alternative travel modes, even if they now commute exclusively by
driving alone.
Table 38: Preferred Alternative Mode by Residence and Workplace Location
Residence/ Workplace Preferred Alternative to Driving Alone
Count
Row %
Bike or Walk Car/ Vanpool Transit Total
Different Places 30 371 221 622
4.76% 59.67% 35.57%
El Portal 39 12 17 67
57.52% 17.78% 24.71%
Tuolumne Meadows 3 10 3 16
18.75% 62.49% 18.75%
Wawona 26 4 8 39
67.08% 10.97% 21.95%
Yosemite Valley 133 25 17 174
76.19% 14.17% 9.64%
Total 230 422 266 918
Test ChiSquare Prob> ChiSq
Likelihood Ratio 458.573 <. 0001
Pearson 459.926 <. 0001
Among those who already use some mode in addition to driving alone, their current alternate
mode is chosen by most as their preferred alternative. Carpool and vanpool are the most
frequently chosen preferred alternatives. This choice may reflect a desire to maintain as much
flexibility as possible. We note that we found no difference in the distribution of preferred
alternatives by employment location. We anticipated that we might have found differences
based on the fact that transit is a realistic option only at El Portal and Yosemite Valley.
What Would Encourage Use of Alternative Commute Travel Modes?
For the alternative commute travel mode they indicated they were most likely to consider,
respondents were asked what would encourage them to actually use that alternative. The data
are summarized in Table 39. These responses are not weighted.
A guaranteed ride home in the event of an emergency or last minute change in work schedule
was cited by two- thirds of all people who selected carpooling or vanpooling as their preferred
alternative to driving alone. About 40% wanted help identifying people with whom to
carpool or vanpool. Concern over scheduling constraints implied in these two answers, and
made explicit in the third most frequent response— a change of work hours— far outweighed
comparative travel costs between driving alone and carpooling or vanpooling.
4 6
The fixed schedule and routes of transit service were the foremost concerns of people willing
to consider transit. More frequent buses ( 72%) and stops located close to home ( 49%) and
work ( 38%) were the things most commonly cited as features that would encourage transit
use. Potential transit riders indicate they also would like to see low fares. A third of potential
bus riders said a guaranteed ride home would encourage them to take transit to work.
The most commonly cited factors that would encourage potential bike riders were
infrastructure for bicycles— more paths ( 32%), more secure place to lock bikes ( 29%) and
shower and locker facilities ( 24%).
Change of work hours, a guaranteed ride home, and a vehicle available for trips for work
were the three most commonly cited factors that would encourage walking to work among
those who stated that walking would be their preferred alternative to driving alone.
47
Table 39: What would encourage use of commute alternatives, count.
Carpooling and Vanpooling, total number: 175
• Guaranteed ride home in the event of emergency or last minute change in work schedule 117
• Assistance finding people with whom to carpool or vanpool 74
• Change of work hours 33
• Analysis of travel costs that showed whether carpooling saved me money 29
• A vehicle available to me to make trips for work during the day 19
• Preferential parking 15
• Change of work days 10
• Childcare facilities near workplace 10
Transit, total number: 106
• More frequent bus service 76
• Bus stop near home 52
• Reduced fares 41
• Bus stop near work 40
• Guaranteed ride home 36
• Information on routes and schedules 20
• Analysis showing whether transit would save me money 9
• A vehicle available to make trips for work during the day 7
• Change to work hours ( to coordinate with bus schedule) 6
• Childcare near work 3
• Fee to park automobile at work 1
• Change work days 1
• Residence location moved from Yosemite Valley, but workplace remained 1
Bicycle, total number: 62
• Bike paths or routes connecting residence to workplace 20
• Secure place to lock bicycle at workplace 18
• Showers and lockers at workplace 15
• Guaranteed ride home 10
• Capability to put bicycle on bus for part of trip 9
• Vehicle available to me to make trips for work 9
• Change to work hours ( daylight) 6
• Bicycle repair facility at workplace 5
• Seminars on safe riding 2
• Analysis showing cost savings 2
• Change to work days 1
• Childcare facility near workplace 1
Walk, total number: 24
• Change to work hours 4
• Guaranteed ride home 4
• Vehicle available for trips for work 4
• Childcare facilities near work 2
• Showers and lockers at workplace 1
4 8
State Route 140/ El Portal Road Analyses
In the next two sections, we present analyses of Yosemite employee travel along the State
Route ( SR) 140 and El Portal Road corridor. 3 First, we perform a “ constraints analysis” to
identify the potential number of riders of an employee commute bus service. In a constraints
analysis, a set of restrictive assumptions are applied to eliminate items that are unlikely to
belong to a desired sub- set. In this case, we apply a series of assumptions in logical steps to
exclude Yosemite employees who are unlikely to be able to use a commute bus service on
SR140/ El Portal Road. Those employees not excluded by the constraints could use such a
service. Whether they would, will depend on the specific design, e. g., schedule and stops, of
the system and other factors, e. g., whether any prospective bus rider must also make stops in
conjunction with their commute trip to engage in other activities. Second, we estimate the
proportion of traffic on this road that is due to Yosemite employee commute trips.
Yosemite Employee Commuter Bus “ Constraints” Analysis
In this section we estimate the potential transit riders among Yosemite employees who
commute along SR 140/ El Portal Road for people working in the park. We initially focus on
the results from our sample while we describe our constraining assumptions. We then
estimate the total potential commute bus riders, we calculate an estimated total number based
on the weights from Table 3 above.
Assumptions about potential commute bus users
Potential commute bus riders are assumed to meet the following conditions. First, they
currently commute along SR 140/ El Portal Road. Thus, they work in Yosemite Valley, in El
Portal, or at the Arch Rock Entrance Station. They live along either SR 140/ El Portal Road or
SR 49 north or south of the town of Mariposa. Second, they have work hours that are both
fairly regular from day to day, and fit within a timeframe in which many other Yosemite
employees commute.
The effects of progressively applying these assumptions are summarized in Table 40. We do
this in order to show how each assumption, in progression, defines potential bus ridership.
We start with the location assumption since we believe it is the most restrictive. That is,
someone with irregular work hours might ride a bus on a day their schedule matches the bus
schedule, but we assume they will not drive out of their way to do so.
3 At the park boundary, SR 140 ceases to be a state highway and becomes a federal lands highway. Outside the
park, the road is SR 140, inside the park it is known as El Portal Road.
49
Table 40: Sequential Derivation of Estimate of Potential Number of Commute Bus
Users
Number Percent
Total Sample Size 961 100
Live and work along SR 140/ El Portal Road 661 69
Do not live and work at same location 270 28
Work relatively fixed schedules 237 25
Both start work between 7: 00 and 8: 30,
and end work between 16: 30 and 17: 30
161
17
Permanent employees 131 14
Workplace and Residence Location
Assumption 1. We first select people who live and work along the SR 140/ El Portal Road
corridor. These 661 people make up 69% of the sample. The distributions of their
workplace and residence locations are shown in Table 41.
Assumption 2. Next, we assume that since many of these people both live and work in
either El Portal or Yosemite Valley, they are not part of the potential market for a
commuter bus service, and they are excluded from further analysis. This reduces the
number of people in our sub- set to 270. The distribution of people who both live and
work in El Portal or Yosemite Valley, as well as those who live and work in different
places is shown in Table 42. The residence and workplace locations of the 270 persons
who do not both live and work in El Portal or Yosemite Valley are shown in Table 43.
We see in Table 43 that very few people who live in Yosemite Valley commute out of the
Valley on a regular basis— only 3% of our sample of Yosemite employees do so. A similarly
small number of people live further away from the park than the town of Mariposa— only 3%
of the sample lives in Catheys Valley, Merced, Mt. Bullion, Bootjack, or Ponderosa Basin.
The residence and workplace location data in Table 43 is cross- classified in Table 44 to show
the locations between which people are commuting. All locations further from the park than
Mariposa are collapsed into a single category (“ beyond Mariposa”) based on the small
number of people who commute to the park from these locations. Also, those people
reporting the Arch Rock Entrance Station is their workplace are included either with the
Yosemite Valley employees ( if their residence is outside the park) or the El Portal employees
( if their residence is in Yosemite Valley).
5 0
Table 41: Workplace and Residence Locations of those Yosemite Employees who both
Live and Work along SR 140/ El Portal Road.
Workplace Location Count Percent Residence Location Count Percent
Yosemite Valley 505 76 Yosemite Valley 343 52
Arch Rock Entrance 7 1 El Portal 150 23
El Portal 149 23 Incline 1 0
Indian Flat 1 0
Midpines 46 7
Mariposa 108 16
Catheys Valley 3 0
Merced 1 0
Mt. Bullion 1 0
Bootjack 6 1
Ponderosa Basin 1 0
Total 661 ~ 100 661 ~ 100
Table 42: Number of People who Live and Work in the Same or Different Places.
Both live and work in Yosemite Valley 335
Both live and work in El Portal 56
Live and work in Different Places 270
Table 43: Residence and Workplace Locations of those Yosemite Employees who both
Live and Work along SR 140/ El Portal Road, but not at the Same Location.
Workplace Location Number Percent Residence Locations Number Percent
Yosemite Valley 170 63 Yosemite Valley 8 3
Arch Rock Entrance 7 3 El Portal 94 35
El Portal 93 34 Incline 1 0
Indian Flat 1 0
Midpines 46 17
Mariposa 108 40
Catheys Valley 3 1
Merced 1 0
Mt. Bullion 1 0
Bootjack 6 2
Ponderosa Basin 1 0
Total 270 ~ 100 270 ~ 100
51
Table 44: Residence by Workplace Locations.
Workplace1
Residence El Portal Yosemite Valley Total
Beyond Mariposa2 5 8 13
Mariposa 59 49 108
Midpines 24 23 47
El Portal 0 94 94
Yosemite Valley 8 0 8
Total 96 174 270
1. People working at Arch Rock are classified as working at El Portal if they live in Yosemite Valley. They are
classified as working in Yosemite Valley if they live in El Portal.
2. Locations classified as being beyond Mariposa are Catheys Valley, Merced, Mt. Bullion, Bootjack and
Ponderosa Basin.
The largest number of commuters traveling between any two points is the group of 94 people
who commute from El Portal to Yosemite Valley. The total number of people commuting
from the town of Mariposa is larger, but their work locations are split between El Portal and
Yosemite Valley.
Assumption 3. Among this sub- set of 270 people, 33 of them indicate they have no fixed
worked schedule. Twenty- six of these people state their work hours vary from day- to-day;
7 state their hours vary from week- to- week. In particular, all the employees at the
Arch Rock Entrance Station indicate their work hours are variable on a day to day basis.
So, while their workplace lies directly on SR 140/ El Portal Road, their use of a bus
service might be sporadic. If we eliminate all people with variable work hours from
further consideration, then 237 people are left as potential commute bus users. The
distribution of the time of day of work start and end times for 230 of these 237 people are
shown in Figures 13 and 14. ( Either the start or end time is missing for seven
respondents.)
Assumption 4. Most employees ( in the sub- set selected so far) at both El Portal and
Yosemite Valley start work between 7: 00 and 8: 30. Most of these employees end work
between 16: 30 and 17: 30. It would be expensive ( per rider) to provide bus- based transit
service to anyone who starts or ends work outside these times. If we select only those
people who both start and end their work shifts within the morning and evening periods
just defined, then our sample of potential commute bus users is 161 people, or 17% of the
total sample of respondents.
5 2
Figure 13: Distribution of Work Start Times among Potential Commute Bus Riders
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700
Start Times, 24 hours
El Portal Yosemite Valley
Permanent and Seasonal Employees
The sample defined so far as the potential market for an employee commute bus service is
made up of a disproportionately large percentage of permanent employees. Across the whole
sample, approximately two- thirds of respondents indicated they were permanent employees.
Within this potential commute bus market, 81% are permanent employees. This increase is
due primarily to the exclusion of people who live and work at the same location from the
potential commute bus market. That is, seasonal employees are much more likely than
permanent employees to live and work at the same location, in particular Yosemite Valley.
Estimating the Total Number of Potential Commute Bus Riders
Applying the appropriate weight to each of the 161 people left in our sub- sample, we
estimate that 399 Yosemite employees are in the potential SR140/ El Portal Road commute
bus user group.
Assumption 5. Not every employee commutes to work every day. If we multiply each
employee by the proportion of weekdays per week they commute to work, we can
estimate daily, weekday, commute trips.
This final calculation results in an estimate of 361 riders per weekday. The distribution of
these people by employer is shown in Table 45. This amounts to approximately 17% of the
total number of employees currently working at El Portal or in Yosemite Valley.
53
Figure 14: Distribution of Work End Times among Potential Commute Bus Riders
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
< 1500 1530 1630 1730 1830 1930 2130 2230 2330
End Times, 24 hours
El Portal Yosemite Valley
Table 45: Potential SR140/ El Portal Road Commute Bus Riders by Employer
Total potential riders Potential riders per weekday
Number Percent Number Percent
NPS 283 71.0% 256 71.0%
YCS 87 21.9% 79 21.8%
park partners 28 7.0% 26 7.2%
Total 399 ~ 100% 361 ~ 100%
The distribution of workplace, work start time, and residence location is shown in Table 46.
This table can be used to judge when and where people might board a bus for their morning
commute. The distribution of workplace, work end time, and residence is shown in Table 47.
That table can be used to judge when and where people might board a bus for their evening
commute.
The data in Tables 46 and 47 suggest that buses running on half- hour headways during the
morning and evening commute periods could accommodate the schedules of many Yosemite
5 4
employees who work at El Portal and in Yosemite Valley. There are a few employees who
state they start or end work on quarter- hours. It is not known how much flexibility these
people have to arrive at, or leave from, work a few minutes earlier or later so as to catch a
bus departing near the half- hour or hour. Further, because many people arrive and depart El
Portal and Yosemite Valley at the same time, it may be desirable to have separate bus
arrivals and departures at the same time at both locations, that is, one bus arriving ( or
departing) El Portal at the same time another bus is arriving ( or departing) Yosemite Valley.
Finally, we reiterate that a constraint analysis of the type performed here simply removes
some people from further consideration based on a set of assumptions. Those 399 employees
who we estimate remain in our sample may have reasons other than residence and workplace
location or work hours for not choosing transit. Conversely, some people might be willing
and able to negotiate relatively small changes in their working hours in order to become
commute transit riders.
55
Table 46: Workplace, Work Start Time and Residence Location
Workplace Work Start
Time
Residence Observed
Counts
Population
Estimates
El Portal 700 Midpines 10 17.4
El Portal 700 Mariposa 39 67.8
El Portal 700 beyond Mariposa 2 3.3
El Portal 730 Midpines 6 9.3
El Portal 730 Mariposa 5 8.3
El Portal 730 beyond Mariposa 1 1.9
El Portal 800 Midpines 1 1.9
El Portal 800 Mariposa 6 8.2
El Portal 800 beyond Mariposa 1 1.9
El Portal 830 Midpines 2 1.6
Yosemite Valley 700 El Portal 10 23.2
Yosemite Valley 700 Midpines 5 11.7
Yosemite Valley 700 Mariposa 11 27.4
Yosemite Valley 700 beyond Mariposa 1 2.8
Yosemite Valley 715 El Portal 1 2.8
Yosemite Valley 730 El Portal 13 35.2
Yosemite Valley 730 Midpines 3 10.1
Yosemite Valley 730 Mariposa 4 12.2
Yosemite Valley 730 beyond Mariposa 1 3.4
Yosemite Valley 745 El Portal 1 3.4
Yosemite Valley 745 Mariposa 1 2.0
Yosemite Valley 800 El Portal 16 43.3
Yosemite Valley 800 Mariposa 11 31.4
Yosemite Valley 800 beyond Mariposa 1 3.4
Yosemite Valley 830 El Portal 6 16.6
Yosemite Valley 830 Midpines 2 6.1
Yosemite Valley 830 Mariposa 1 4.5
Total 161 361.1
Locations “ beyond Mariposa” are Catheys Valley, Merced, Mt. Bullion, Bootjack, and Ponderosa Basin.
5 6
Table 47: Workplace, Work End Time, and Residence Location
Workplace Work End
Time
Residence Observed
Counts
Population
Estimates
El Portal 1630 Midpines 8 14.4
El Portal 1630 Mariposa 32 56.2
El Portal 1630 beyond Mariposa 2 3.7
El Portal 1645 Mariposa 1 1.9
El Portal 1700 Midpines 8 10.8
El Portal 1700 Mariposa 5 8.3
El Portal 1700 beyond Mariposa 1 1.9
El Portal 1730 Midpines 3 4.8
El Portal 1730 Mariposa 12 17.9
El Portal 1730 beyond Mariposa 1 1.5
Yosemite Valley 1630 El Portal 12 26.6
Yosemite Valley 1630 Midpines 6 17.4
Yosemite Valley 1630 Mariposa 15 39.9
Yosemite Valley 1630 beyond Mariposa 3 9.5
Yosemite Valley 1645 El Portal 1 3.4
Yosemite Valley 1645 Mariposa 1 2.0
Yosemite Valley 1700 El Portal 30 82.4
Yosemite Valley 1700 Midpines 3 8.3
Yosemite Valley 1700 Mariposa 7 21.0
Yosemite Valley 1715 Mariposa 1 4.5
Yosemite Valley 1730 El Portal 4 12.3
Yosemite Valley 1730 Midpines 1 2.2
Yosemite Valley 1730 Mariposa 4 10.0
Total 161 360.9
Locations “ beyond Mariposa” are Catheys Valley, Merced, Mt. Bullion, Bootjack, and Ponderosa Basin.
Current SR 140/ El Portal Road Commuters and their Assessment of Commute
Travel Alternatives
In this section, we describe some of the characteristics of the 161 respondents who now
represent our “ potential commuter transit market” according to the assumptions outlined in
57
the previous sections. Data on employer and work location are summarized in Table 48.4
( This discussion was presented for all survey respondents in the prior section on Employee
Commute Alternatives.)
Table 48: Employer and Work Location, Percent of each Sub- set Working at each
Location, percent
Potential Commuter Transit Market
as defined by this analysis ( n = 161)
Sample of all employees who work
at El Portal, Arch Rock, or
Yosemite Valley ( n = 711)
Workplace
Employer El Portal Yosemite Valley El Portal Yosemite Valley
NPS 94.5% 65.8% 90.5% 28.0%
park partner 5.5% 5.7% 8.9% 5.7%
YCS 0.0% 29.6% 0.6% 66.4%
NPS employees are somewhat more likely to be included in the commute bus ridership
estimate because they are more likely than YCS employees to both work at El Portal and to
live and work at different locations. That is, comparing the columns for El Portal in Table 48,
it is clear that the reason so much of the potential transit market to El Portal is made up of
NPS employees is that virtually all employees at El Portal work for the Park Service. In the
case of Yosemite Valley, YCS employees are not a large part of the commute transit
ridership estimate because they are more likely to already be living in Yosemite Valley.
Few of the potential commute bus users ( 5%) said they currently take transit to work. Those
who do say they use either VIA or the YCS- operated Midpines commuter service. The other
95% of the potential market drive alone ( 47%), carpool ( 25%), or both ( 23%).
Among those who do not use transit to commute to work, nearly two- thirds stated they
definitely ( 35%) or probably ( 30%) would consider an alternative to their current commute
mode. However, only 38% indicated that a bus service would be their preferred alternative.
Most people indicated that carpooling ( either at all for those who drive alone, or carpooling
more often for those who already carpool) would be their preferred alternative.
Among those who indicated that transit was the alternative they preferred, the most desired
features of such a service were frequent buses, stops near home and work, low fares and a
guaranteed ride home in the event of an emergency or last minute change in work departure
time. Responses to this question are summarized in Table 49. Changes at the workplace, for
example, changes to work hours or work days, the provision of daycare at or near work, paid
parking at work, and employer- provided vehicles in the event of the need to make trips for
work, do not appear to be productive strategies to encourage transit use— at least among the
small number of people who answered this question.
4 All data in this section represent the unweighted sample.
5 8
Table 49: What would cause those interested in a bus to work to use it?
Number ( out of 41 respondents)
Frequent bus service 28
Bus stop near workplace 20
Bus stop near home 19
Guaranteed ride home 15
Reduced fare for riding bus 14
Information on bus routes and schedules 9
Changes in work hours 3
Chi