How can we move people? optimizing transportation demand management in Park City: reducing congestion and enhancing transit options

Park City, Utah, occupies a distinctive place among American resort towns. Though its permanent population is relatively small, estimated at 8,365 residents according to the United States Census Bureau's 2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimate, Park City supports an annual visitor volume of over four million people (Parkcityinformation.org, 2024).

HOW CAN WE MOVE PEOPLE? OPTIMIZING TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT IN PARK CITY: REDUCING CONGESTION AND ENHANCING TRANSIT OPTIONS. Mustapha Osman May 2025 A Professional Project Report for the University of Utah Master of City & Metropolitan Planning Program Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 3 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 4 Methodology ............................................................................................................. 5 Analysis and Findings ................................................................................................ 6 Existing Conditions Analysis ....................................................................................... 6 Transit ...................................................................................................................... 6 Existing Public Transit Services ................................................................................... 6 Transit Ridership ........................................................................................................ 7 Transit Ridership by Seasons ...................................................................................... 9 Travel Behavior ........................................................................................................ 11 Means of Travel to Work ........................................................................................... 11 Travel Time to Work .................................................................................................. 12 Travel Volume .......................................................................................................... 12 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) ........................................................................... 13 Average Hourly Traffic Patterns SR 224 and SR 248 (2023) ........................................... 14 Average Hourly Traffic Volume (Summer & Winter Months, 2023) ................................ 15 Existing Transportation Demand Management Initiatives ............................................ 17 Park and Ride Facilities ............................................................................................ 17 Ride On Park City ..................................................................................................... 18 Guaranteed Ride Home............................................................................................ 20 Utah Transit Authority Vanpool ................................................................................. 20 Real-Time Information Gathering and Messaging ....................................................... 20 Addressed and Unimplemented Recommendations from the 2016 TDM Plan .............. 21 Analysis from Engagement ....................................................................................... 22 Participants Overview .............................................................................................. 22 Key Themes from Engagements ................................................................................ 23 Comparative Case Studies ....................................................................................... 25 Transportation Demand Management Recommendations and Implementation Strategies .............................................................................................................................. 32 1|Page Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 46 Reference ............................................................................................................... 47 Appendix ................................................................................................................ 48 2|Page Executive Summary This project examines how Park City, Utah, can optimize its Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies to reduce vehicle congestion, improve transit access, and support sustainable growth in a high-volume resort community. With a permanent population of just over 8,300 but over 4 million annual visitors, Park City faces significant transportation pressures—particularly on SR-224 and SR-248 driven by single-occupancy vehicles, limited regional transit access, and seasonal workforce travel. The study reviews Park City’s existing TDM programs, intercepts interviews with local commuters, and compares case studies from peer resort towns such as Aspen, Breckenridge, North Lake Tahoe, Yosemite National Park, and Whistler. Key findings show that while Park City has made substantial investments in fare-free transit, park-and-ride facilities, and digital commute platforms, program effectiveness is constrained by low public awareness, limited regional connections, and insufficient service frequency. Based on stakeholder feedback and national best practices, this report recommends ten realistic strategies for implementation. These include introducing transit signal priority, adopting a trip reduction ordinance, expanding workforce housing, increasing transit frequency, strengthening Ride On marketing, and implementing a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor on SR-224. Each recommendation is designed to be scalable, evidence-based, and aligned with Park City’s longterm sustainability and mobility goals. By advancing these strategies, Park City can meaningfully reduce congestion, improve mobility for residents and visitors, and maintain the quality of life and environmental values that define the community. 3|Page Introduction Park City, Utah, occupies a distinctive place among American resort towns. Though its permanent population is relatively small, estimated at 8,365 residents according to the United States Census Bureau’s 2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimate, Park City supports an annual visitor volume of over four million people (Parkcityinformation.org, 2024). This influx is concentrated heavily in the winter season, with approximately 2.6 million visitors drawn by the city’s ski industry, anchored by Park City Mountain and Deer Valley Resort. While smaller in scale, summer tourism still accounts for more than 1.4 million visits annually (Parkcityinformation.org, 2024). These numbers concentrated during the winter and summer recreational seasons contribute to high levels of travel demand. State Routes 224 and 248 function as the city’s main access points, and both are regularly overwhelmed by peak traffic periods, which have implications for mobility. Private vehicles, particularly for skiers and commuters, are the primary mode of travel to and within Park City. According to the 2023 5-year estimates, about 62% of workers in Park City drive alone to work. The high reliance on single occupancy vehicles (SOVs) contributes to recurring congestion, most visibly during winter weekends and holidays. These patterns undermine the city’s goals to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Park City has adopted a range of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) policies and programs to alleviate congestion issues and enhance transit as a viable option for commuter travel. The city operates a free public transit system, encouraging carpooling through designated parkand-ride facilities. These interventions represent commendable progress. The voluntary nature of the TDM initiatives has not produced the scale of behavioral change needed to address the city’s peak season congestion issues. Understanding the limitations of existing approaches requires a detailed evaluation of current TDM programs. My project aimed to assess current TDM efforts 4|Page and develop innovative strategies that reduce traffic congestion, enhance transit options, and improve overall mobility for residents and visitors. Methodology This project adopts a mixed-method approach to assess the effectiveness of Transportation Demand Management strategies in Park City and propose evidence-based recommendations. The methodology integrates program and policy review, quantitative transportation data analysis, comparative case studies, and intercept interviews with residents. Program and Policy Review This component of the methodology involved a review of transportation planning documents. These documents include the current Transportation Demand Management plan, which outlines the city’s strategic framework for reducing single occupancy vehicle use, encouraging mode shift, and managing congestion. In addition to the Transportation Demand Management plan review, I examined draft reports from ongoing Transportation Demand Management program updates. Quantitative Analysis of Transportation Data The study analyzed traffic volume, transit ridership, visitation trends, and parking occupancy data using data from the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), Park City Transit, and the United States Census Bureau. Intercept Interviews with Residents To complement the quantitative data, 15 short intercept interviews were conducted with residents in various parts of Park City. These interviews aimed to capture everyday user experiences with transportation and attitudes toward existing Transportation Demand Management strategies. 5|Page Comparative Case Studies Case studies from Aspen, North Lake Tahoe, Yosemite National Park, The Town of Breckenridge, and Whistler were reviewed to extract relevant lessons for Park City. These comparisons focused on successful Transportation Demand Management strategies. Limitations Reliance on secondary data that is openly accessible might not be able to capture variations in service performance or customer satisfaction. Although helpful in revealing local viewpoints, the intercept interviews were few and not statistically representative. However, when combined with quantitative data, the insights offer solid, multifaceted for assessing and improving Park City’s framework for managing transportation demand. Analysis and Findings Existing Conditions Analysis A thorough understanding of Park City’s current transportation environment is essential to identifying the strengths and limitations of its existing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies. This section evaluates baseline conditions related to travel behavior, roadway capacity, transit operations, parking infrastructure, and seasonal variation. Transit Existing Public Transit Services Park City operates a free, city-managed transit system that serves local neighborhoods and regional commuter hubs. Three major transfer points anchor the network: Kimball Junction Transit Center, Old Town Transit Center, and Park City Mountain Village Transit Hub. Regional connectivity is provided by High Valley Transit, with key commuter services linking Park City to Heber City via 6|Page SR-248 (Route 105) and Salt Lake City (Route 107) via the Jeremy Ranch. Figure 1 shows the existing transit coverage in Park City. Figure 1. Transit Coverage Map of Park City Transit Ridership Transit Ridership by Fiscal Year Figure 2 shows Transit Ridership by Fiscal Year in Park City (July 2019–June 2024). The bar chart below presents the total annual transit ridership in Park City by fiscal year, defined as July through June. The 2019–2020 fiscal year recorded the highest ridership at approximately 3.83 million boardings and alightings. A substantial decline followed in FY 2021, reflecting the impacts of the 7|Page COVID-19 pandemic and associated reductions in travel and tourism. Ridership gradually recovered through FY 2023, peaking again above 3 million. However, FY 2024 experienced a slight decline to 2.69 million (11% reduction), indicating a potential plateau in post-pandemic transit demand. Table 1 shows the percentage change in annual ridership. Figure 2. Fiscal June 2019 – July 2024 Transit Ridership for Park City Table 1. Fiscal Year Transit Ridership Percentage Change Table Fiscal Year Ridership Change Percentage Change (%) July 2019 – June 2020 - - July 2020 – June 2021 -1,827,256 - 47.7 July 2021 – June 2022 314,645 15.7 July 2022 – June 2023 705,252 30.4 July 2023 – June 2024 -336971 -11.1 8|Page Transit Ridership by Seasons Winter Season Figure 3 shows the Transit Ridership by Winter Season in Park City (2019–2025). The bar chart below illustrates total transit ridership across six winter seasons, combining boardings and alightings. Ridership peaked during the 2019–2020 winter season with over 2.26 million total boardings and alightings. A sharp decline is observed in 2020–2021, likely due to COVID-19 travel restrictions and reduced tourism. Subsequent winters gradually recover, with 2022–2023 marking the highest post-pandemic ridership. Although the 2023–2024 and 2024–2025 seasons did not reach pre-pandemic levels, they indicate a stabilizing trend in winter transit use. Figure 3. Winter Transit Ridership 9|Page Summer Season Figure 4 shows Transit Ridership During Summer Seasons in Park City (2019–2024). The bar chart below displays each year's total transit ridership during summer. Ridership was highest in Summer 2019, totaling over 590,000, before experiencing a sharp drop in 2020, likely due to the COVID19 pandemic’s impact on tourism and local mobility. Since then, summer ridership has steadily increased, reaching approximately 482,000 in 2024, though still below pre-pandemic levels. This gradual rebound suggests a partial recovery in seasonal transit demand aligned with summer tourism activity. Figure 4. Summer Transit Ridership 10 | P a g e Travel Behavior Means of Travel to Work According to the 2023 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year estimates, commuting patterns in Park City are heavily dominated by single occupancy vehicle use. Approximately 61.7% of workers drive alone, indicating a firm reliance on personal vehicles. 22.8% of the workforce reports working from home. Other transportation modes show much lower usage: 5.5% carpool, 3.5% use public transit, 3.1% walk, and 1.2% bicycle. 2.2 % rely on other means such as taxis, motorcycles, or other nontraditional methods. Figure 5 below shows the means of commuting to work. Figure 5. Means of Travel to Work 11 | P a g e Travel Time to Work According to the 2023 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year estimates, commuting patterns in Park City are characterized by short travel times. The mean travel time to work is just 14.5 minutes, below the national average of 26.8 minutes. 43.3% of workers commute less than 10 minutes, and 74% travel under 20 minutes. Commutes over 35 minutes are relatively rare, comprising only 8.1%, and just 2.8% endure travel times of an hour or more. Figure 6 below shows the means of travel time to work. Figure 6. Travel Time to Work Travel Volume Vehicle traffic volumes along State Route 248 (SR-248) and State Route 224 (SR-224) were analyzed using traffic data reported by the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT). 12 | P a g e Specifically, the analysis incorporated Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) figures and hourly volume data from Continuous Count Stations (CCS) to better understand overall demand and temporal traffic patterns on these key corridors. Figure 7 below shows the aerial view of SR 224 and SR 248. Figure 7. Aerial View of SR 224 and SR 248 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) The line chart below (Figure 8) illustrates annual average daily traffic (AADT) trends for SR-224 and SR-248 from 2019 to 2023. SR-224 consistently carried significantly more traffic than SR248, with volumes ranging from 154,100 in 2020 to 181,300 in 2023. A noticeable decline in 2020 reflects the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, followed by a steady recovery in subsequent years. SR-248 exhibited a similar pattern, with AADT dipping to 88,700 in 2020, then rebounding to over 13 | P a g e 101,000 by 2023. These trends indicate that while travel demand decreased in 2020, both corridors have returned to or surpassed pre-pandemic traffic levels, underscoring their importance as the region's primary commuter and visitor routes. Figure 8. Annual Average Daily Traffic (2019 – 2023) Average Hourly Traffic Patterns SR 224 and SR 248 (2023) The chart below (Figure 9) illustrates the average hourly vehicle volumes along SR 224 and SR 248 for 2023. Traffic volumes begin to rise around 6:00 AM. Both routes exhibit a clear morning peak between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM, followed by sustained high volumes throughout the afternoon and a secondary peak around 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM. SR 224 consistently records higher traffic volumes than SR 248 across all hours, reflecting its role as the primary access route into Park City. Traffic on both corridors declines after 6:00 PM, with volumes tapering off significantly after 8:00 PM. These diurnal patterns suggest traditional commuter behavior, likely associated with work schedules, school travel, and recreational trips. 14 | P a g e Figure 9. Average Hourly Traffic Patterns SR 224 and SR 248 (2023) Average Hourly Traffic Volume (Summer & Winter Months, 2023) The chart below (Figure 10) shows the average hourly traffic volume during the summer months of 2023 (June–August) for SR 224 and SR 248. Both corridors follow a strong diurnal pattern, beginning with low traffic in the early morning and rising sharply between 6:00 AM and 8:00 AM. This is followed by a sustained high traffic volume from late morning through the afternoon, peaking between 12:00 PM and 5:00 PM. SR 224 consistently records higher hourly volumes than SR 248. Figure 10 also shows the average hourly traffic volume during the winter months of 2023 (December to February) for SR 224 and SR 248, two key corridors in Park City. Traffic rises sharply after 6:00 AM, peaking between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM, consistent with morning commute and ski resort access activity. The volume remains elevated through midday and into the late afternoon, with a second peak between 3:00 PM and 5:00 PM, likely reflecting outbound resort traffic. 15 | P a g e Figure 10. Average Hourly Traffic Volume for Summer 2023 Figure 11. Average Hourly Traffic Volume for Winter 2023 16 | P a g e Existing Transportation Demand Management Initiatives Park and Ride Facilities Park and Ride facilities are key in managing regional transportation demand in the Park City area. Among the available sites, Richardson Flat offers the highest capacity with 650 parking spaces, followed by the High School with 400 spots, serving as major intercept points for commuters and visitors. Smaller facilities like Ecker Hill (90 spots), Jeremy Ranch (63), Kimball Junction (34), and Kamas Park & Ride (50) provide additional capacity to support distributed access to the transit network and reduce congestion on key corridors. For High School, the facility can only be accessed on weekends. The table below shows the Park and Ride facilities in Park City. Table 2. Park and Ride Facilities in Park City Park and Ride Jeremy Ranch Number of Spots 63 Ecker Hill 90 Kimball Junction 34 High School 400 Richardson Flat 17 | P a g e 650 Connecting Routes 101 Spiro PC-SLC Connect/ HVT 107 101 Spiro 10 White Express 101 Spiro PC-SLC Connect/ HVT 107 1- Red 5 - Yellow 6 - Silver 7 - Grey 50 - Teal Park City Mountain Shuttles 102 Gateway/Kamas Old Town Express Park City Mountain Express Deer Valley Express Notes limited available parking 10 EV spaces 10 limited mobility spaces Limited parking available Only available on weekends and holidays Portable restrooms are available Buses come every 15 minutes during resort hours Kamas Park & Ride 50 102 Gateway/Kamas Open to Public Not snow plowed Ride On Park City A free online resource called Ride On Park City was created in October 2019 to encourage environmentally friendly transportation in the Park City region (parkcity.org, 2025). Whether you walk, bike, carpool, or take public transit, it links you with neighbors, coworkers, and other commuters who take similar routes. Ride On also enables regional businesses and groups to support environmentally friendly travel by offering incentives, challenges, and rewards. Operating the Ride On platform for PCMC costs $24,995.00 per year (Ride On Draft Report, 2023-2024). To pay for their unique subsites on the RideAmigos platform, the other Ride On Partners individually contribute $8,331.67 (Ride On Draft Report, 2023-2024). In 2021, Park City launched a program under the Ride On specific to the Winter named Ride On Winter Commuter Rewards Program. Ride On Utilization Since its launch in 2019, Ride On Park City has been a platform to promote sustainable commuting options by connecting users. Utilization of the platform has remained modest. According to the Ride on Draft Report 2023-2024, the platform saw strong initial interest, with 964 sign-ups in its first year (2019–2020). However, sign-ups dropped sharply in the second year to 168, marking an 83% year-over-year decline, likely due partly to the pandemic’s disruption of commuting patterns. Interest rebounded in 2021–2022, with sign-ups increasing to 505, a 201% growth from the previous year. This upward trend continued into 2022–2023, reaching 666 sign-ups, a 32% increase that reflects growing awareness and stabilization of travel behaviors. For the current cycle (2023– 2024), Ride On had 633 sign-ups as of April 19, 2024, just shy of the previous year's total, 18 | P a g e indicating a 5% year-over-year decline with several months still unaccounted for. Table 3 below shows the year-to-year sign-ups for Ride On Park City. The Ride On Winter Commuter Rewards Program is active each year from December 1 to March 31. In its first year, according to the Ride on Draft Report 2023-2024, 116 participants signed up and logged over 11,000 sustainable trips, covering 182,600 miles and diverting approximately 43.6 tons of CO₂. The program experienced substantial growth in 2022–2023, with 376 participants, a 224% increase, who completed 31,000 sustainable trips, resulting in 467,277 miles traveled and 110 tons of CO₂ diverted. Although participation slightly declined by 13% in 2023–2024 to 326 participants, the program still achieved significant environmental benefits with 23,000 trips logged, 374,367 miles traveled, and 87.1 tons of CO₂ saved. Table 4 below shows the year-to-year sign-ups for the Ride On Winter Commuter Rewards Program for Park City. Table 3. Ride On Park City Sign-Ups October 1 to September 30 (2019-2024) Year Participants Percentage Change (5) 2019-2020 964 - 2020-2021 168 -83% 2021-2022 505 201% 2022-2023 666 32 2023-2024* 633 -5% (Through April 19) Table 4. Ride On Winter Rewards Program Sign-Ups December 1 to March 31 (2021-2024). Winter Year Participants Sustainable Trips Miles Covered 2021-2022 116 11,000 182,600 2022-2023 376 31,000 467,277 2023-2024 326 23,000 374,367 19 | P a g e Guaranteed Ride Home The purpose of Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) is to offer an "insurance policy" against being left stranded at work if an employee has to make an emergency trip home or miss their bus home because they had to work unexpected overtime (parkcity.org, 2025). Participation is open to any employee who commutes to work using a method other than driving alone and works in Park City or the neighboring Summit County. Participants in the GRH program are entitled to up to six program uses or a total reimbursement of $250 annually, whichever comes first. GRH members usually take a cab or ride-hailing app to get home. After that, the worker uses the Reimbursement Claim Form to submit their receipt for payment. Within 30 days after submitting a request, reimbursements are made via mailed check (parkcity.org, 2025). Utah Transit Authority Vanpool Park City Municipal Corporation partners with the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) to operate a dedicated vanpool service for municipal employees commuting from Salt Lake City. This program is designed to offer a reliable, cost-effective, and sustainable transportation alternative for staff members who live outside of Park City but work within the city limits. The vanpool operates Monday through Friday, providing one round trip per day. Real-Time Information Gathering and Messaging Park City, in collaboration with Summit County and the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), deploys a combination of Variable Messaging Systems (VMS) and a text messaging alert system (Draft Report 2023-2024). These tools communicate real-time information about parking availability, roadway congestion, and traffic incidents on Park City’s key corridors. 20 | P a g e Addressed and Unimplemented Recommendations from the 2016 TDM Plan The 2016 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Report provided comprehensive recommendations to reduce single-occupancy vehicle use and promote sustainable travel behavior in Park City. Since its release, several key recommendations have been successfully implemented, while others remain in progress or unaddressed. The table below shows addressed and unimplemented recommendations from the 2016 TDM plan. Table 5. Address and Unimplemented Recommendations from the 2016 TDM Plan Addressed Unimplemented 1. Increased bicycle parking 1. Expanded Commute options 2. Electric bicycle share system 2. Establish performance measures and (operated by Summit County) data collection to monitor the effectiveness of TDM efforts 3. Real-time information messaging 3. Airport Connection (in-progress) 4. Density bonus for parking reduction 4. Vanpool program operated by Park (yet to be adopted) 5. TDM coordinator and plan required City Transit. 5. Transit Jump Queue Lanes for new developments (yet to be adopted) 6. Provide affordable employee housing. 7. Satellite parking 8. Unbundled and shared parking (yet to be adopted) 9. Provide tailored information and promotions. 10. Carpool/vanpool parking 11. Increased transit frequency to Kimball Junction 21 | P a g e 6. School Parking Management 12. Transit Vehicle Signal Pre-emption Analysis from Engagement To understand how Park City residents experience and evaluate the city’s transportation system, this study incorporated a qualitative engagement component through fifteen intercept interviews conducted across various locations, including Kimball Junction, Prospector Square, and Old Town. These brief, semi-structured interviews were designed to capture local perspectives on congestion, transit accessibility, commuter behavior, and the effectiveness of existing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies. While the sample size is modest, the findings offer valuable qualitative depth and help contextualize patterns observed in quantitative data. Participants Overview Age Distribution Most respondents (52.2%) were aged 40–49, followed by those in the 30–39 range (21.7%). Younger (20–29) and older (50–60) adults accounted for 13% of participants. The data reflects a relatively middle-aged respondent base, with many active in the workforce and commuting regularly. The pie chart below shows the age profile of respondents. Figure 12. Age Distribution of Respondent 22 | P a g e Key Themes from Engagements The 22 intercept interviews revealed consistent concerns and suggestions from Park City residents and commuters regarding current transportation conditions and programs. Several clear themes emerged. Commuting Patterns and Transportation Choices Commuting behaviors among the 22 respondents showed a strong dominance of private vehicles. Fourteen of the 22 respondents (64%) reported primarily commuting by car, citing it as the only feasible option given their work hours and residential location. In contrast, five participants (23%) used public transit at least weekly, and three individuals (13%) reported walking or biking. Park City operates a free-fare transit system; cost was not a central concern; instead, convenience, time, and access emerged as influential in transportation decision-making. One response mentioned, “It is great that it is free, but if it does not get me to work on time, that does not help me.” Regional Transit is Not Meeting Commuting Needs Participants commuting from outside Park City, mainly from Salt Lake Valley and Heber, described the regional bus system as “too slow” and “poorly timed” for shift work. They felt that the current schedule does not support early or late workers. One respondent mentioned “if you live in Heber and open at 7 am, you are not taking the bus. You’re driving.” Others described how bus time travel is lower than driving, especially when transferring between location and regional routes. One respondent shared “It takes me about 35 minutes to drive from Salt Lake City, but over an hour if I try to take the bus, and that’s if everything is on time.” 23 | P a g e Low Visibility of TDM Programs Despite ongoing investment in platforms like Ride On Park City, public awareness of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs remains low. Most participants had never heard of Ride On, and none reported active platform use or participation in its associated commuter incentive programs. The Winter Commuter Rewards Program was unfamiliar to nearly all respondents, including those who regularly commute and could benefit from such services. “I’ve lived here for years and never heard of Ride On. They should advertise that more.” One long-time Park City resident stated. Another respondent echoed this same feeling. She said, "I commute daily, and I’ve never gotten any information about this. I would’ve signed up if I knew it existed.” Support for Transit, but Gaps in Infrastructure Undermine Use Through the 22 interviews, participants expressed support for public transit and acknowledged Park City’s efforts to offer a free fare system. Many indicated they would prefer to take the transit, especially during winter, if it were more physically accessible and reliable. Infrastructure limitations were cited as a deterrent to transit use. This included a lack of shelters and limited lastmile connectivity. One participant mentioned “I don’t have a problem with taking the bus. But when the stop has no cover, and it’s freezing out, it’s not worth it.” Respondent Recommendations Respondents shared ideas on improving transportation access and encouraging more sustainable commuting behavior. Individual perspectives varied, but some themes emerged more frequently. 1. Promote existing TDM programs. 24 | P a g e 2. Enhance transit infrastructure like bus shelters. 3. Increase early morning and evening transit services. Comparative Case Studies Aspen, Colorado Aspen provides a highly relevant model for Park City due to its similar profile as a high-elevation resort town with a strong tourism economy, seasonal congestion, and a commitment to preserving environmental quality. Over the past decade, Aspen has implemented a comprehensive set of TDM strategies that integrate transit, active transportation, parking management, and employer engagement, many of which have proven successful and adaptable to Park City's context. Table 7. Key TDM Strategies and Approach in Aspen Category Transit Access Approach Eight fare-free local bus routes with highfrequency service Regional Connectivity Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) to Glenwood Springs and Roaring Fork Valley Commuter Incentives COMMUTEwell: $5/day subsidy for biking/walking (up to $100/month) Employer cash-out programs for not using parking Parking Policy Paid parking downtown is used to fund TDM programs Pricing disincentivizes SOV trips Multimodal Options Carpool matching, car share, and bike share systems Seasonal Responsiveness TDM programs are designed to flex with seasonal visitor/worker demand 25 | P a g e Employer Engagement Private shuttles for resorts and transit support through workplace policies Public Engagement Bike to Work Day, outreach campaigns, and education programs TDM Funding Model Parking meter revenue is reinvested into mobility and commuter programs. Yosemite National Park Yosemite National Park, located in California’s Sierra Nevada Mountains, receives nearly 3.7 million visitors annually. It faces significant transportation challenges due to its remote geography, limited roadway access, and mixed-use travel environment (National Park Service, 2025). Visitors arrive via multiple gateways and utilize a range of modes, including private vehicles, tour buses, shuttles, bicycles, and pedestrian routes. In response to these pressures, Yosemite has developed a comprehensive transportation management approach rooted in sustainability, multimodal integration, and environmental protection. Table 8. Key TDM Strategies and Approach for Yosemite National Park Category Approach Shuttle System Yosemite Valley Visitor Shuttle Free, yearround service along a 6.5-mile loop Regional Transit YARTS (Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System) has four regional routes from surrounding counties. Parking Strategy Increase Yosemite Valley day-use parking by 8%; relocate parking to improve flow. Aims 26 | P a g e to reduce congestion and support park-once behavior Seasonal Service Planning Adjusted shuttle schedules based on visitor demand and seasonality Congestion Mitigation The multi-agency planning process to manage traffic, improve safety, and enhance the visitor experience Pedestrian Infrastructure Improved pedestrian amenities, including sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalks, and lighting The Town of Breckenridge Breckenridge, Colorado, is a high-altitude resort town located east of Denver, with a tourismdriven economy centered on skiing, outdoor recreation, and retail. Like Park City, it faces seasonal congestion, constrained parking availability, and a reliance on service-industry workers. In 2011, the town adopted the SustainableBreck Plan, a long-range framework focused on balancing economic development with environmental stewardship and livability. The plan’s transportation component includes clear TDM goals: to reduce vehicle dependency, expand transit use, and manage parking demand without continuous infrastructure expansion. Breckenridge's integrated, data-driven approach offers valuable insights into how smaller resort towns can support mode shift and sustainable access. Table 9. Key TDM Strategies and Approach for the Town of Breckenridge Category 27 | P a g e Approach Local Transit Access FreeRide Bus fare-free circulator for residents and visitors Commuter Incentives Green Commute Program – incentivizes nondriving commutes among town employees. Parking Management Dynamic Pricing Program – pay-to-park system based on time, location, season Monitoring & Evaluation Annual Report Card tracks progress using key indicators. Indicators include VMT, traffic counts, ridership, and parking occupancy. North Lake Tahoe North Lake Tahoe spans a multi-jurisdictional region across Placer and Nevada Counties in California and Washoe County in Nevada. It experiences intense seasonal surges in visitation— particularly during winter and summer, leading to chronic traffic congestion, parking shortages, and strain on local infrastructure. The region's transportation system must accommodate shortterm recreational visitors and long-distance commuting workers, many of whom are priced out of housing in Tahoe's core communities. In response, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) developed the Lake Tahoe Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Framework to guide coordinated regional action. The plan integrates TDM into land use, parking, public transit, and employer practices to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), greenhouse gas emissions, and congestion around the lake. 28 | P a g e Table 10. Key TDM Strategies and Approach for North Lake Tahoe Category Approach Employer-Based TDM Trip Reduction Ordinance (TRO). Employers with 100+ workers are required to implement commute programs. Transit Service Expanded seasonal and year-round fixed-route transit Micromobility & Trails Over 88 miles of shared-use paths; investments in bike infrastructure and winter maintenance Parking Management Paid parking in core areas funds TDM initiatives. Monitoring & Evaluation Ongoing data collection; region-wide performance dashboards. Includes metrics for SOV use, ridership, and carbon reduction Mobility Hubs Transit centers with parking, lockers, trail access, and real-time bus signage Whistler Whistler, British Columbia, is a year-round mountain resort town with a strong parallel to Park City in both geography and economic profile. As a former Winter Olympics host city with limited roadway access and a tourism-driven economy, Whistler has prioritized sustainable transportation 29 | P a g e to manage seasonal congestion and support its labor force. Despite recent reductions in TDM funding following the 2010 Olympics, the municipality maintains a TDM framework through its Comprehensive Transportation Strategy, supported by a full-time Transportation Demand Management Coordinator. The city emphasizes integrated transit operations, employee-focused mobility services, and housing strategies that minimize long-distance commuting. Table 11. Key TDM Strategies and Approach for Whistler Category Approach Transit Service Free, late-night/early-morning employee shuttles Cost-Sharing Model 50/50 transit service cost split between municipality and regional agency Housing Policy 75% of the workforce housed within Whistler through local housing authority efforts Trail and Pedestrian Use Summer trail network supports biking and walking; winter mobility relies on robust transit use. Employer Engagement Resorts provide employee transit passes. Monitoring & Evaluation Visitor and skier access surveys were conducted to track mode share and TDM effectiveness. 30 | P a g e Shared Priorities Across Peer Cities All five communities emphasize reducing single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) use, improving multimodal access, and ensuring year-round mobility for residents and visitors. This is achieved through a combination of physical infrastructure, service investments, and behavior-based incentives: 1. Fare-Free Transit: Implemented in Aspen, Breckenridge, and Yosemite Valley to lower barriers for tourists and shift short trips to transit. 2. Employer Engagement: Seen in Whistler and Lake Tahoe, where employers support employee shuttles, transit passes, or coordinate vanpools. 3. Parking Management: Aspen, Tahoe, and Breckenridge use parking fees as a disincentive to driving and a dedicated funding source for transit and active transportation investments. 4. Workforce Housing as TDM: Whistler stands out by housing 75% of its workforce locally, directly reducing regional vehicle trips. Aspen and Park City face similar pressures and could benefit from expanded employer-assisted housing. 5. Trail and Active Mode Networks: All peer cities recognize walking and biking as essential for mode shifts, especially in summer. Tahoe and Whistler have invested in trail systems that double as commute corridors. 6. Seasonal Flexibility and Real-Time Info: Cities like Yosemite and Breckenridge scale service and pricing dynamically based on seasonality while using apps, signage, or dashboards to inform users and adjust strategies. 31 | P a g e Transportation Demand Management Recommendations and Implementation Strategies Recommendations Based on an evaluation of existing Transportation Demand Management programs, resident engagement findings, best practices, and progress on the 2016 TDM Plan, this section outlines targeted recommendations to strengthen Park City’s TDM framework. While the city has made commendable investments in fare-free transit, ride-matching platforms, and regional partnerships, public feedback and participation data reveal persistent gaps in program visibility, service reliability, and multimodal accessibility. The following recommendations address these gaps with practical, community-informed strategies that improve system efficiency, increase commuter participation, and reduce single-occupancy vehicle dependence. Integrate Transit Signal Priority with the SCATS System Leverage the existing Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic System (SCATS) network to implement Transit Signal Priority (TSP) at key intersections in Park City. TSP would allow transit vehicles to receive extended green lights or reduced red phases during peak congestion, improving travel times and service reliability without significant infrastructure changes. Rationale The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) implemented the SCATS system in 2005 and manages signal operations across a 14-intersection network in Park City (Martin & Stevanovic, 2008). The SCATS adjusts signal timing in response to real-time traffic conditions but has not been integrated with transit-specific prioritization features. Transit Signal Priority is a proven, low-cost technology that enhances bus reliability and travel time without requiring major roadway expansion. Integrating TSP with SCATS, which already manages real-time signal timing in the area, would improve system responsiveness and support Park City’s reduced vehicle miles travel 32 | P a g e (VMT) goals. Based on feedback from Park City commuters and a precedent study in Portland, Oregon, the combined use of SCATS and TSP can potentially improve bus reliability, travel time, and air quality outcomes. The Portland research showed that when TSP was layered onto SCATS, transit travel times improved without disrupting overall signal coordination, particularly during off-peak periods. The study also found that reducing idling time through TSP contributed to lower particulate emissions (PM2.5), a relevant concern in resort towns with pedestrian-heavy environments (Oregon Transportation Research and Education Consortium, 2014). In Chicago, Pace Suburban and Chicago Transit Authority have also integrated TSP with adaptive signal systems in BRT. “It takes me about 35 minutes to drive from Salt Lake City but over an hour if I try to take the bus, and that’s if everything is on time.” - Interview participant, October 2024 Trip Reduction Ordinance Establish a Trip Reduction Ordinance in Park City requiring large employers and developers to implement strategies that reduce vehicle trips generated by their employees or developments. The ordinance will apply to central trip generators such as ski resorts, hotels, schools, and new commercial or multifamily residential developments. Rational Park City encourages voluntary participation in TDM programs such as Ride On Park City and park-and-ride facilities but lacks a binding mechanism to ensure consistent employer engagement or long-term mode shift. A TRO would require large employers—such as resorts, hotels, and public institutions to actively support sustainable commuting behavior through measures like subsidized transit passes, employer-provided shuttles, carpool incentives, or cash-out parking programs. This approach is successfully implemented in Placer County’s North Lake Tahoe region, where 33 | P a g e employers over a defined size threshold must submit annual TDM plans using a point-based system that assigns value to various strategies. The Lake Tahoe model demonstrates that a TRO can be structured to allow employers flexibility in choosing the TDM actions most appropriate to their operations while holding them accountable for outcomes. Such a system could also be tied to future development approvals in Park City requiring TDM mitigation as a condition for projects that add to transportation demand. “The resorts bring in thousands of people a day. They should be part of the solution because people come here because of them.” - Interview participant, October 2024 Expand Affordable and Workforce Housing to Reduce Commuter Travel Increase the supply of affordable and workforce housing within Park City to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and promote sustainable commuting behavior. Housing policy should be treated as a core element of the city's Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategy. Rationale As of 2025, Park City contains 674 deed-restricted affordable housing units, 69% rental and 31% owner-occupied. However, a recent housing needs assessment revealed that an additional 1,100 units are required over the next seven years to adequately support local workers and middle-income residents (parkcity.org, 2025). Without this supply, service, and hospitality, employees, many of whom power Park City’s resort economy, are forced to live in outlying areas such as Heber, Kamas, or Salt Lake Valley, often commuting long distances in single-occupancy vehicles. Affordable housing near transit routes or within walkable distance to employment centers offers a direct trip reduction benefit. “I live in Heber. Rent here is just out of reach unless you split with five people. I drive to work always because that is the only option I have.” – Interview Participant, December 2024. 34 | P a g e Improve Marketing and Employer Engagement of TDM Programs Enhance outreach, visibility, and employer integration of existing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs, particularly Ride On Park City and the Winter Commuter Rewards Program, to increase participation and long-term behavior change. Rationale Despite a well-developed platform and program structure, Ride On Park City's participation remains modest and inconsistent. Initial engagement in 2019–2020 saw 964 sign-ups, but participation dropped sharply in 2020–2021 by 83%, likely due to pandemic-related disruptions. While interest rebounded in the following two years, 2023–2024 figures (633 users as of April) show a 5% year-over-year decline, suggesting a plateau in outreach effectiveness. The Ride On Winter Commuter Rewards Program demonstrated strong growth in its second year, from 116 participants in 2021–2022 to 376 in 2022–2023, but experienced a 13% decline to 326 participants in 2023–2024. These figures indicate that, while the program has delivered environmental benefits (e.g., over 374,000 miles of sustainable travel and 87.1 tons of CO₂ diverted in 2023–2024), ongoing engagement is not keeping pace with growth targets. Feedback from public interviews confirms a key reason, which is the low visibility of the programs. “I commute every day and did not even know about the winter rewards thing. That could actually help.” – Interview Participant December 2024. “I’ve lived here for years and never heard of Ride On. They should advertise that more.” – Interview Participant December 2024. 35 | P a g e Expand and Coordinate Regional Transit Services Park City should collaborate with regional transit providers, including High Valley Transit, Utah Transit Authority (UTA), and Wasatch County agencies, to expand coverage, frequency, and service hours for commuters traveling from surrounding communities such as Heber, Kamas, and Salt Lake Valley. These improvements should be paired with better regional coordination, marketing, and transfer integration. Rationale Many of Park City’s workforce reside outside city limits, often commuting from Summit, Wasatch, or Salt Lake counties. Public engagement findings repeatedly highlighted long, unreliable, or unavailable regional transit options, especially for early or late shifts. Many workers described current bus routes as “too slow,” “poorly timed,” or completely unusable based on shift schedules. While Park City offers free transit within city boundaries, the lack of robust regional service forces many workers to rely on single-occupancy vehicles (SOVs), increasing congestion on SR-224 and SR-248. Expanding regional bus frequency, introducing express commuter routes, and improving timed transfers with Park City Transit would support TDM goals, reduce travel time, and improve equity for the outlying workforce. According to the 2016 TDM, the estimated combined ridership for new and expanded services to Heber City, Kamas, and Coalville is approximately 133,700 annual trips. “If you live in Heber and open at 7 a.m., you are not taking the bus. You’re driving.” — Interview participant, October 2024 Increase Transit Frequency Park City should increase bus frequency on high-ridership local routes, particularly the Blue, Green, and Teal lines, from 30-minute to 15-minute headways during peak hours. Enhancing 36 | P a g e service frequency will improve reliability, reduce waiting times, and make the system more attractive for daily commuters and resort workers. Rationale According to the 2024 Spring, Summer, and Fall Riders Guide, most of Park City’s local routes operate at 30-minute daily intervals. The Park City transit system is free and covers a broad area, but long headways remain a key deterrent. Only the Historic Park City Trolley operates every 15 minutes, demonstrating that faster service is operationally feasible and more convenient. Feedback from resident interviews consistently emphasized that the time cost of waiting for a bus outweighed the benefit of free fare, especially for those with time-sensitive obligations. Shorter headways during the busiest morning and afternoon periods would improve access, reduce stress for shift workers, and make transit a more viable alternative to driving. Encourage Active Transportation through Infrastructure and Commuter Support Park City should promote walking and biking as practical, everyday transportation modes by improving infrastructure, addressing seasonal maintenance, and providing commuter-focused amenities and incentives through partnerships with employers and existing TDM programs. Rationale Active transportation modes such as walking and cycling offer substantial TDM benefits, such as reducing vehicle trips, lowering emissions, and improving public health. Park City already features an extensive trail system, but many of these facilities serve recreation rather than commuting, and gaps remain between residential neighborhoods, workplaces, schools, and transit stops. Park City can draw on successful models such as Aspen’s COMMUTEwell program. Park City can draw on successful models such as Aspen’s COMMUTEwell program, which provides a “$5 per day” bike/walk subsidy, up to $100 per month, for city employees who commute by bicycle or on foot. 37 | P a g e Aspen’s Bike to Workday is a successful community event that engages riders of all ages with free helmets, giveaways, and bike safety checks at ride-through stations, promoting visibility and building momentum for sustainable travel behavior (City of Aspen, 2025). Advance the Development of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on SR-224 Park City should continue prioritizing the planning, funding, and phased implementation of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line along the SR-224 corridor. The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system along State Route 224 (SR-224) will link Kimball Junction to Old Town with fast, frequent, and reliable service. BRT is the most effective way to increase person throughput along this congested corridor while preserving Park City's natural character and mountain-town lifestyle. Rationale SR-224 is one of the most heavily traveled corridors in Summit County, serving over 10,000 employees, thousands of visitors, and residents daily. The proposed BRT system would combine dedicated bus lanes and mixed-flow segments, offering 7-day-a-week service with 10–15-minute frequencies on low-emission, ADA-accessible vehicles. It is designed to carry up to 5,000 passengers daily, reducing the need for expanded parking facilities or road widening and easing pressure on downtown circulation. BRT has been shown in comparable mountain towns like Aspen to improve reliability, reduce travel times, and attract ridership, especially when combined with park-and-ride access and real-time transit information. Figure 12 shows the lane configuration from 30% design. 38 | P a g e Figure 12 Design Concept Photo From High Valley Transit Support and Monitor Pilot Programs Targeting Commuter Access and Transit Gaps Park City should fully support and carefully evaluate the outcomes of its four new transportation initiatives: vanpool subsidies, taxi reimbursements for transit-inaccessible areas, new rider storage lockers, and a transition to the Transit App to identify scalable, long-term solutions for reducing single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) use and improving access. Rationale In 2024, Park City launched several pilot programs to address persistent barriers to transit use and regional commuting. These initiatives respond directly to public concerns identified through this study, including limited commuter options from outside Park City, first/last-mile challenges within city neighborhoods, and the need for better trip planning tools. The vanpool pilot operates in partnership with Commute with Enterprise. The program subsidizes nine vehicles at $750 per month each, with potential for expansion based on demand. The taxi reimbursement program 39 | P a g e addresses transit deserts, providing a $10 per-trip subsidy to residents who live more than half a mile from the nearest bus stop. New storage lockers installed at the Old Town Transit Center offer secure, short-term space for riders and visitors, encouraging more flexible, multimodal travel. Adopting the Transit App, replacing MyStop, enhances trip planning and real-time coordination across Park City Transit, High Valley Transit, and UTA. This change addresses longstanding complaints. MyStop accounted for 16% of all transit system complaints since 2018. Implementation Strategies Table 6 presents a list of proposed strategies for each recommendation outlined above. The table identifies lead agencies and partners for each recommendation, action steps, and expected outcomes. Table 6 Proposed Recommendation Strategies Recommendat Lead Agency Partners Action Steps ion Expected Outcomes Integrate Utah 1. Park City Transit 1. Identify high-delay 1. Shorter bus travel Transit Signal Department of 2. High Valley intersections on SR- times, particularly Priority with Transportation Transit 224 and SR-248 during congestion the SCATS 3. Summit County 2. Equip buses with 2. Improved service System 4. Park City onboard TSP reliability, boosting Municipal equipment transit ridership Corporation 3. Configure SCATS potential signal controllers to 3. Better alignment respond to transit of signal timing with priority requests multimodal travel demand 40 | P a g e 4. Pilot during winter peak season; evaluate travel time and reliability gains Implement a Park City 1. Park City 1. Draft ordinance 1. Reduced drive- Trip Reduction Planning Transportation language based on alone commuting Ordinance Department Planning the Lake Tahoe rates among Department model employees 2. Major 2. Define 2. Increased Employers applicability institutional support 3. Summit County thresholds for alternative 4. PCMC Legal 3. Require transportation Counsel submission of annual 3. Measurable TDM plans using a progress toward flexible, point-based mode shift and VMT strategy matrix. reduction goals 4. Provide technical assistance Expand Park City 1. Park City 1. Provide incentives 1. Reduction in Affordable and Housing Planning such as density regional commuter Workforce Department Department bonuses and reduced traffic and emissions Housing to 2. Local parking minimums 2. Greater access to Reduce Developers for mixed-income alternative housing transportation for 41 | P a g e Commuter 3. Utah Housing 2. Prioritize housing lower-income Travel Corporation development near workers major transit 3. Improved equity corridors and retention of 3. Partner with essential workforce employers to explore populations co-funded or deedrestricted workforce housing models Improve Park City 1. Major employers 1. Develop a targeted 1. Increased Marketing and Transportation 2. HR departments marketing campaign enrollment in Ride Employer Planning using social media, On and Winter Engagement Division digital boards, Rewards programs onboarding packets, 2. Stronger and in-bus posters collaboration 2. Create incentives between employers for employer and the city promotion, such as 3. Higher rates of public recognition. non-SOV (single- 3. Host annual TDM occupancy vehicle) info sessions with commuting behavior employers, focusing 4. Greater awareness on HR departments of sustainable of large organizations commute options 42 | P a g e among the local workforce Expand and High Valley 1. Park City Transit 1. Identify 1. Reduced Coordinate Transit 2. Utah Transit underserved origin- commuter reliance Authority destination pairs on personal vehicles Transit 2. Launch pilot 2. Improved access Services express routes with to employment for limited stops during regional workers peak hours 3. Lower congestion Regional and emissions along entry corridors 4. Stronger integration between local and regional transit networks Encourage Park City 1. Trails and Open 1. Launch a local 1. Higher rates of Active Transportation Space Department “Bike/Walk to Work” biking and walking Transportation Planning 2. Public Works incentive program for short and mid- through Department Department 2. Expand and range commutes Infrastructure maintain friendly 2. Increased and Commuter bike and pedestrian first/last-mile access Support infrastructure to transit 3. Expand bike 3. Reduced short- parking facilities distance vehicle 43 | P a g e trips and parking demand Support and Park City Park City Planning 1. Publicize vanpool 1. Reduced SOV Monitor Pilot Transportation Department and taxi programs travel among service Programs Department through Ride On Park workers and Targeting City, employer residents in transit- Commuter channels, and inaccessible areas Access and community outreach 2. Better user Transit Gaps 2. Track usage experience with trip metrics, cost- planning and efficiency, and user multimodal feedback for coordination programs 3. Improved access 3. Monitor adoption for regional and and satisfaction with local commuters the Transit App platform and resolve usability issues Advance the 1. UDOT 1. Park City Transit 1. Project Design and 1. High-capacity, Development 2. Park City 2. High Valley Right of Way zero-fare transit of Bus Rapid Municipal Transit acquisition access between Transit (BRT) Corporation. 3. Utah Transit 2. Completed central nodes on SR-224 3. Summit Authority environmental study 2. Reduced vehicle 3. Construction congestion on SR- County 4. BRT services begin 224 44 | P a g e 3. Faster, more reliable mobility for workers and visitors Increase Park City 1. High Valley 1. Identify routes 1. Greater transit Transit Transit Transit with the highest usage among 2. Park City demand residents and Transportation 2. Pilot 15-minute seasonal workers Planning headways on selected 2. More dependable Department routes during peak service for periods commuters with 3. Monitor on-time fixed schedules performance, 3. Improved ridership increases, perception of transit and operational cost reliability and Frequency convenience 45 | P a g e Conclusion Park City’s current transportation challenges stem from the tension between its small permanent population and the large seasonal influx of visitors and commuting workers. The city has made commendable progress in expanding free public transit, investing in park-and-ride infrastructure, and launching digital commute platforms like Ride On Park City. However, travel data analysis, resident feedback, and comparative case studies reveal that voluntary TDM strategies alone cannot produce the behavior change required to meet the city’s long-term mobility and sustainability goals. This project identifies shortcomings—such as low program awareness, limited regional connectivity, inadequate service frequency, and lack of last-mile infrastructure—that prevent existing programs from realizing their full potential. Resident interviews confirmed these gaps and offered practical recommendations reflected in this report’s implementation strategies. Drawing from the best practices in Aspen, Breckenridge, Whistler, and Yosemite, this project recommends a more structured, data-informed approach to TDM implementation in Park City. Key proposals include integrating Transit Signal Priority into the SCATS system, adopting a Trip Reduction Ordinance, expanding regional transit and affordable housing, and continuing investment in multimodal infrastructure and commuter incentives. If executed strategically and paired with improved monitoring and outreach, these interventions can significantly reduce congestion, increase transit ridership, and enhance residents' and visitors' quality of life. In doing so, Park City will advance toward its transportation goals and strengthen its position as a sustainable, world-class resort community. 46 | P a g e Reference Park City Information. (2024). Park City at a Glance TM Winter Vacation Planner, 2024. Accessed on 08/21/2024. https://www.parkcityinformation.org/history.of.park.city.utah.htm Park City Municipal Corporation. (2024). About Park City, Utah. Accessed on 08/21/2024. https://www.parkcity.org/about-us Park City Municipal Corporation. (2024). DRAFT Ride On Commuter Incentive Program Report 2023-2024 Park City Municipal Corporation. (2024). DRAFT Existing TDM Initiatives Report 2023-2024 Park City Municipal Corporation. (2016). Transportation Demand Management Plan. National Park Service. (2025). Natural Resource Statistics. Retrieved https://www.nps.gov/yose/learn/nature/natural-resourcestatistics.htm#:~:text=About%20the%20Park-,Nature,Wildlife accessed on 04/01/2025 from Parkcity.org. (2025). Guaranteed Ride Home Program Description. Retrieved from https://www.parkcity.org/departments/transportation-planning/guaranteed-ride-homegrh#:~:text=Guaranteed%20Ride%20Home%20(GRH)%20is,required%20to%20work%20unex pected%20overtime accessed on 04/1/2025 47 | P a g e Appendix Interview Questionnaire Interview Duration: 10–15 minutes Format: Semi-structured (mix of open-ended and structured questions) Section 1: Background Information 1. Are you a resident of Park City or do you commute in from another location? ➢ Park City resident ➢ Commuter (please specify location): __________________________ 2. What is your primary occupation or type of work? 3. What is your typical work schedule? ➢ Early morning ➢ Daytime ➢ Evening/Night ➢ Variable/Shift-based Section 2: Commuting Behavior 4. What is your primary mode of transportation to work or school? ➢ Personal vehicle ➢ Transit (bus, shuttle) ➢ Walking ➢ Biking ➢ Carpool ➢ Other: ____________________ 5. Why do you choose this mode? (check all that apply) ➢ Convenience ➢ Cost ➢ Travel time ➢ Reliability ➢ Environmental concern ➢ Lack of alternatives ➢ Other: ____________________ 6. Have you ever used Park City’s public transit system? ➢ Yes ➢ No 7. If yes, how often do you use it? ➢ Daily ➢ A few times a week ➢ Occasionally ➢ Rarely 8. What factors would make you more likely to use transit more often? 48 | P a g e Section 3: Awareness of TDM Programs 9. Have you heard of any of the following programs? (Check all that apply) ➢ Ride On Park City ➢ Guaranteed Ride Home ➢ Winter Commuter Rewards Program ➢ Vanpool programs (e.g., UTA, Commute with Enterprise) ➢ None of the above 10. If yes, have you participated in any of them? Why or why not? Section 4: Infrastructure & Service Feedback 11. Do you feel transit options meet your commuting needs (e.g., hours, frequency, reliability)? ➢ ➢ ➢ Yes No Please explain: _______________________________________ 12. What is your impression of the walking and biking infrastructure in Park City? 13. What would make walking or biking a more feasible option for you? Section 5: Recommendations 14. What is one thing the City could do to improve your transportation experience? 15. Would you be open to reducing your driving trips if reliable alternatives were provided? ➢ ➢ ➢ Yes No Maybe 16. Anything else you'd like to share about your travel experience in Park City? 49 | P a g e