At least for the peak season possibly in 17 parks:
http://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/national-park-service-fee-proposal/index.html
I always renew my annual pass every year but honestly something like this probably is a good idea. The infrastructure in places like Yosemite and Zion isn't really designed to handle the volume of vehicles and people they are getting these days. Really $70 dollars would probably drive a lot of people away (at least I would think) but it might pay for some redevelopment for things like facilities and roads. Referring back to my Generals Highway Road in the Pacific Southwest Board as an example; Sequoia/Kings Canyon has the entire highway on a 17 year repair cycle cycle for a 32.5 mile stretch of road. The busted up sections are a good example of what lack of funds coupled with traffic volume can do even on the NPS level IMO.
I agree that it is a good idea. I am not sure it will stop people from coming. A lot of these parks are pretty remote, when you look at the cost of lodging, an added $50 in cost for a week is probably not to going to deter anyone. Besides, you could just splurge the extra 10 bucks and get access to everything for a whole year. The increase in revenues are badly needed to repair the infrastructure.
No national park -- not even the mighty Yellowstone -- is worth $70 to visit.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 25, 2017, 10:55:33 AM
No national park -- not even the mighty Yellowstone -- is worth $70 to visit.
But that entrance fee is "per car" meaning you could stuff it with as many folks who can fit. Compared to something like a theme park where that price is per person it's still a relative bargain. Really it ups the value of the Annual Parks Pass more than anything since it is projected to be $80 a year. Really you get your money's worth in just two park visits the way it would stand with a entrance hike to $70.
I'd pay well over $70 to visit our major national parks. As dcharlie points out, for those traveling any distance, costs for hotels, food, gas/flights will dwarf the entrance fee anyway. I am afraid that anyone for whom the change from say $25 to $70 in the per carload entrance fee for multiple days of access would change their plans probably doesn't have the means to make a trip to that park in the first place (or at least doesn't consider it a high enough priority to dedicate a portion of their means to such a trip).
My biggest argument against is that as a taxpayer, I'm already paying for the parks, so shouldn't I be able to visit for free or for a nominal fee?
What's weird is that Great Smoky Mountains, which had more than twice as many visitors as the #2 ranked park would not be affected. After effect of the fire damage?
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on October 25, 2017, 01:49:09 PM
What's weird is that Great Smoky Mountains, which had more than twice as many visitors as the #2 ranked park would not be affected. After effect of the fire damage?
GSMNP is free.
From the NPS website: "The reasons for free entry to the national park date back at least to the 1930s. The land that is today Great Smoky Mountains National Park was once privately owned. The states of Tennessee and North Carolina, as well as local communities, paid to construct Newfound Gap Road (US-441). When the state of Tennessee transferred ownership of Newfound Gap Road to the federal government, it stipulated that "no toll or license fee shall ever be imposed..." to travel the road.
At that time, Newfound Gap Road was one of the major routes crossing the southern Appalachian Mountains. It's likely the state was concerned with maintaining free, easy interstate transportation for its citizens. North Carolina transferred its roads through abandonment, so no restrictions were imposed.
Action by the Tennessee legislature would be required to lift this deed restriction if Great Smoky Mountains National Park ever wished to charge an entrance fee."
Source: https://www.nps.gov/grsm/planyourvisit/whyfree.htm
The parks do take money to maintain. I don't mind paying it. Their tax support is very small. I'd probably switch to the $80 all national parks annual pass, instead of the Mt Rainier National Park only annual pass I get now.
I'm concerned about lower income people being able to enjoy the parks, though. Some parks are remote, but many of them are within a half day drive of a large metro area and a day trip is a worthwhile way to enjoy them.
People are defending this, but not criticizing the proposed cuts to the National Park Service budget?
The national parks are a great treasure, and they belong to the people. They shouldn't be charging more than a small fee.
Also, I thought the $80 pass was only for seniors. I'm too young for it.
Quote from: bandit957 on October 25, 2017, 07:59:26 PM
Also, I thought the $80 pass was only for seniors. I'm too young for it.
Seniors could get for free, I want to say that was discontinued however. I buy the annual pass every year since I usually hit at least 40-50 NPS units yearly.
I've seen some comments on social media stating they have had proper revenue all along to maintain the roads but it was diverted and placed into the general funds to balance he budget? Can anyone verify that or is it just typical social media ignorance?
I only ask because my knowledge of history is way off from where it should be.
The cheapo senior pass was done away with this year and now they have to pay up like the rest of us.
Although a fee increase may be good, this increase is being put forward as a means to address the enormous maintenance backlog of the NPS after desires to cut its budget have been voiced by the Republican Administration.
Because of that intent, I foresee that this measure will actually exacerbate the backlog. The NPS needs a reliable budget stream to address its needs, not the uncertainty of what will happen to visitation due to the price hike.
I agree with those who say only a nominal entrance fee should be required for national parks. I've paid $20 and $25 per vehicle for a week-long permit or $5 per person per day and think this is appropriate. The parks need money, but should be supported primarily through appropriations. Admission fees should be supplementary revenues. NPS is trying to do what they can to fill the gap, but they can't fix the problem made by Congress. Texas state parks (and school districts) are in similar shape because of a miserly legislature.
There is an annual pass for $80 that covers all national parks and other federal lands. Current members of the military and their dependents can get one for free. Students can get a free pass for their fourth grade year, good from September to August covering that academic year. Senior passes for those 62 or older were available for a one-time processing fee of $10 until this year. Currently, seniors can get a lifetime pass for $80 or an annual pass for $20. There are also free passes for the disabled and for certain volunteers.
https://www.nps.gov/planyourvisit/passes.htm (https://www.nps.gov/planyourvisit/passes.htm)
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 25, 2017, 10:30:32 AMThe infrastructure in places like Yosemite and Zion isn't really designed to handle the volume of vehicles and people they are getting these days. Really $70 would probably drive a lot of people away (at least I would think) but it might pay for some redevelopment for things like facilities and roads.
The only way I see congestion being reduced at Yosemite and Zion is visitation being allowed only by lottery, the lottery being applied to everyone, including current holders of all-access passes. The backlash that would almost certainly result from this is such that I can understand why the NPS instead uses forced transit to provide a lowest-common-denominator experience that is accessible to everyone. To visit those parks and have the "get away from it all" experience that is readily offered by less visited parks like Guadalupe Mountains NP or Great Basin NP, I suspect you have to go backcountry.
The fees offer only bikini coverage of the NPS' expenses and, frankly, Congress should never have allowed them in the first place. I would infinitely prefer the NPS to be adequately funded out of general taxation. For that matter, I also disagree with the recent trend of major art museums charging super-high admissions fees that cover only a small fraction of their costs. (As an example, the Art Institute of Chicago--probably second in this country only to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York--was free to all before 2006, and now costs $25 to visit.)
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 26, 2017, 12:44:16 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 25, 2017, 10:30:32 AMThe infrastructure in places like Yosemite and Zion isn't really designed to handle the volume of vehicles and people they are getting these days. Really $70 would probably drive a lot of people away (at least I would think) but it might pay for some redevelopment for things like facilities and roads.
The only way I see congestion being reduced at Yosemite and Zion is visitation being allowed only by lottery, the lottery being applied to everyone, including current holders of all-access passes. The backlash that would almost certainly result from this is such that I can understand why the NPS instead uses forced transit to provide a lowest-common-denominator experience that is accessible to everyone. To visit those parks and have the "get away from it all" experience that is readily offered by less visited parks like Guadalupe Mountains NP or Great Basin NP, I suspect you have to go backcountry.
The fees offer only bikini coverage of the NPS' expenses and, frankly, Congress should never have allowed them in the first place. I would infinitely prefer the NPS to be adequately funded out of general taxation. For that matter, I also disagree with the recent trend of major art museums charging super-high admissions fees that cover only a small fraction of their costs. (As an example, the Art Institute of Chicago--probably second in this country only to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York--was free to all before 2006, and now costs $25 to visit.)
The weird thing about art museums is that many have a "recommended donation" that is basically a semi-mandatory entrance fee.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 26, 2017, 12:44:16 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 25, 2017, 10:30:32 AMThe infrastructure in places like Yosemite and Zion isn't really designed to handle the volume of vehicles and people they are getting these days. Really $70 would probably drive a lot of people away (at least I would think) but it might pay for some redevelopment for things like facilities and roads.
The only way I see congestion being reduced at Yosemite and Zion is visitation being allowed only by lottery, the lottery being applied to everyone, including current holders of all-access passes. The backlash that would almost certainly result from this is such that I can understand why the NPS instead uses forced transit to provide a lowest-common-denominator experience that is accessible to everyone. To visit those parks and have the "get away from it all" experience that is readily offered by less visited parks like Guadalupe Mountains NP or Great Basin NP, I suspect you have to go backcountry.
The fees offer only bikini coverage of the NPS' expenses and, frankly, Congress should never have allowed them in the first place. I would infinitely prefer the NPS to be adequately funded out of general taxation. For that matter, I also disagree with the recent trend of major art museums charging super-high admissions fees that cover only a small fraction of their costs. (As an example, the Art Institute of Chicago--probably second in this country only to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York--was free to all before 2006, and now costs $25 to visit.)
Yosemite was doing some sort of trial reservation program for the Valley floor this year, I want to say that was back in August? The other parts of the park weren't under the same restriction but Glacier Point has had mandatory shuttles after a certain time of day for quite some time now. Zion is the real disaster when it gets busy, about all you can do is pay to park at some commercial parking and shuttle in. Really the only way to beat crowds in places like Zion or Yosemite is either to get in there really early during the peak season or go during off-peak, winter in the former is absolutely beautiful.
I am all for a lottery system, in theory, actually. Such systems have worked on a smaller scale for hikes up Half Dome in Yosemite, for example.
I suppose the mess would be lodging management as people reserve and then cancel if they don't win the lottery and what not. Also, the lottery would be gigantic.
So, theoretically appealing but probably not practical given the millions of visitors a year.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 25, 2017, 11:24:20 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 25, 2017, 10:55:33 AM
No national park -- not even the mighty Yellowstone -- is worth $70 to visit.
But that entrance fee is "per car" meaning you could stuff it with as many folks who can fit. Compared to something like a theme park where that price is per person it's still a relative bargain. Really it ups the value of the Annual Parks Pass more than anything since it is projected to be $80 a year. Really you get your money's worth in just two park visits the way it would stand with a entrance hike to $70.
Theme parks are overpriced, too, and I wouldn't be caught dead in one these days. Disney, Kings Island, etc., have no appeal for me. Too many people there, for one thing. Same reason I won't go to a concert or sporting event or anything like that. As big of a Kentucky basketball fan as I am, the only way I'd consider attending one was if I could be beamed Star-Trek style into a luxury suite that's isolated from the crowd and has television screens so I can better see the action. (Well, I might consider lower-arena seating if it's close enough to the floor; if not, I get a better view on TV without having to deal with people and traffic jams.)
Quote from: Rothman on October 26, 2017, 08:27:26 AM
I am all for a lottery system, in theory, actually. Such systems have worked on a smaller scale for hikes up Half Dome in Yosemite, for example.
I suppose the mess would be lodging management as people reserve and then cancel if they don't win the lottery and what not. Also, the lottery would be gigantic.
So, theoretically appealing but probably not practical given the millions of visitors a year.
I think every campsite and hotel room reserved in advance would have one entry into the valley included. Shouldn't need to be taking a chance on getting one without the other.
Quote from: kkt on October 26, 2017, 12:06:47 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 26, 2017, 08:27:26 AM
I am all for a lottery system, in theory, actually. Such systems have worked on a smaller scale for hikes up Half Dome in Yosemite, for example.
I suppose the mess would be lodging management as people reserve and then cancel if they don't win the lottery and what not. Also, the lottery would be gigantic.
So, theoretically appealing but probably not practical given the millions of visitors a year.
I think every campsite and hotel room reserved in advance would have one entry into the valley included. Shouldn't need to be taking a chance on getting one without the other.
So...a lottery for people who want to stay in the park that is taken into account in the overall quota. Might work, but again, this lottery might be too gigantic to run. Millions of notification e-mails to send, millions of applications to get in the lottery, etc., etc.
Quote from: Rothman on October 26, 2017, 02:07:02 PM
Quote from: kkt on October 26, 2017, 12:06:47 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 26, 2017, 08:27:26 AM
I am all for a lottery system, in theory, actually. Such systems have worked on a smaller scale for hikes up Half Dome in Yosemite, for example.
I suppose the mess would be lodging management as people reserve and then cancel if they don't win the lottery and what not. Also, the lottery would be gigantic.
So, theoretically appealing but probably not practical given the millions of visitors a year.
I think every campsite and hotel room reserved in advance would have one entry into the valley included. Shouldn't need to be taking a chance on getting one without the other.
So...a lottery for people who want to stay in the park that is taken into account in the overall quota. Might work, but again, this lottery might be too gigantic to run. Millions of notification e-mails to send, millions of applications to get in the lottery, etc., etc.
And being the whole reason for the increase in fees is to bring in money to get some much needed work done, spending money to set up a lottery system to limit the number of people in the park and reducing attendance, is the exact opposite of the goals here!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 26, 2017, 02:13:43 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 26, 2017, 02:07:02 PM
Quote from: kkt on October 26, 2017, 12:06:47 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 26, 2017, 08:27:26 AM
I am all for a lottery system, in theory, actually. Such systems have worked on a smaller scale for hikes up Half Dome in Yosemite, for example.
I suppose the mess would be lodging management as people reserve and then cancel if they don't win the lottery and what not. Also, the lottery would be gigantic.
So, theoretically appealing but probably not practical given the millions of visitors a year.
I think every campsite and hotel room reserved in advance would have one entry into the valley included. Shouldn't need to be taking a chance on getting one without the other.
So...a lottery for people who want to stay in the park that is taken into account in the overall quota. Might work, but again, this lottery might be too gigantic to run. Millions of notification e-mails to send, millions of applications to get in the lottery, etc., etc.
And being the whole reason for the increase in fees is to bring in money to get some much needed work done, spending money to set up a lottery system to limit the number of people in the park and reducing attendance, is the exact opposite of the goals here!
Like I said a few posts ago, the idea that this fee increase will reduce the backlog is poppycock. The number I heard on the radio was that less than $100m/yr will be generated by this increase. That is a ridiculous pittance for those of us that actually work with the financing of projects (yours truly). As the Republican Administration cuts the NPS budget, there is no way for that pittance to make up the difference. Fund the NPS properly from the get-go.
So, our conversation turned towards dealing with means of controlling the overcrowding and the lottery system as an option.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 25, 2017, 08:05:50 PM
Quote from: bandit957 on October 25, 2017, 07:59:26 PM
Also, I thought the $80 pass was only for seniors. I'm too young for it.
Seniors could get for free, I want to say that was discontinued however. I buy the annual pass every year since I usually hit at least 40-50 NPS units yearly.
I thought the difference is that the senior pass is a lifetime pass–you pay one time and it's good until you die. At least, that's how my father's is, but maybe they changed that recently.
Edited to add: It's still a lifetime pass, it just costs $80 now instead of $10. There's a $20 annual senior pass option as well. https://store.usgs.gov/faq#New-Senior-Pass-Update
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 26, 2017, 03:09:35 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 25, 2017, 08:05:50 PM
Quote from: bandit957 on October 25, 2017, 07:59:26 PM
Also, I thought the $80 pass was only for seniors. I'm too young for it.
Seniors could get for free, I want to say that was discontinued however. I buy the annual pass every year since I usually hit at least 40-50 NPS units yearly.
I thought the difference is that the senior pass is a lifetime pass–you pay one time and it's good until you die. At least, that's how my father's is, but maybe they changed that recently.
Edited to add: It's still a lifetime pass, it just costs $80 now instead of $10. There's a $20 annual senior pass option as well. https://store.usgs.gov/faq#New-Senior-Pass-Update
This is worth noting, too. The lifetime pass can be paid for in quarter payments over four consecutive years.
"The legislation also establishes an annual Senior Pass for $20. That pass is valid for one year from the date of issuance. Four annual Senior Passes purchased in consecutive years can be traded in for a lifetime pass."
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 26, 2017, 02:13:43 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 26, 2017, 02:07:02 PM
Quote from: kkt on October 26, 2017, 12:06:47 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 26, 2017, 08:27:26 AM
I am all for a lottery system, in theory, actually. Such systems have worked on a smaller scale for hikes up Half Dome in Yosemite, for example.
I suppose the mess would be lodging management as people reserve and then cancel if they don't win the lottery and what not. Also, the lottery would be gigantic.
So, theoretically appealing but probably not practical given the millions of visitors a year.
I think every campsite and hotel room reserved in advance would have one entry into the valley included. Shouldn't need to be taking a chance on getting one without the other.
So...a lottery for people who want to stay in the park that is taken into account in the overall quota. Might work, but again, this lottery might be too gigantic to run. Millions of notification e-mails to send, millions of applications to get in the lottery, etc., etc.
And being the whole reason for the increase in fees is to bring in money to get some much needed work done, spending money to set up a lottery system to limit the number of people in the park and reducing attendance, is the exact opposite of the goals here!
There are two different goals. The very heavily used portions of the parks are generally very small compared to their overall size. For instance, Paradise at Mt. Rainier is very crowded during summer weekends, hard to find a parking place, crowded visitor center, etc. But in other parts of the park you can be quite alone. Raising the admission price would help with repairs, but keeping the crowded parts of the park manageable is also a goal.
I'd just buy the annual pass, which is a bargain. When we went to Arizona in '14, we bought one, and it paid for itself in three days.
Quote from: inkyatari on October 27, 2017, 01:40:47 PM
I'd just buy the annual pass, which is a bargain. When we went to Arizona in '14, we bought one, and it paid for itself in three days.
I'm hoping to get mine renewed in two weeks at the Grand Canyon. I've kind of gotten into the habit of going to a lot of National Parks in the late fall if not outright winter. Back in 2013 I had Great Basin and all National Parks in Utah practically all to myself after a big winter storm. I just went a week after the storm when the roads cleared and had a blast pretty much being by myself. Some of the parks on the list get to a point where they aren't even fun in the peak seasons if you go at the wrong hour. Yellowstone comes to mind as being especially brutal during late June through August, good luck with parking there.
Quote from: kkt on October 26, 2017, 05:19:01 PM
There are two different goals. The very heavily used portions of the parks are generally very small compared to their overall size... But in other parts of the park you can be quite alone.
So perhaps the solution would be to lower the admission to the park itself (to encourage overall attendance) but somehow add a separate admission charge to areas of the park that are frequently congested (hopefully encouraging visitors to explore under-appreciated sections)?
If the new fee schedule were to be approved, it needs discounts of all kinds. Discounts for in-state (or nearby) residents, discounts for those on low incomes (who are often deprived of the national park experience anyway). And there needs to be better public transit options to get to parks, especially those that are within a short drive of cities (but otherwise inaccessible for people without cars), and discounts for people that don't bring their cars.
I don't know why nearby residents should get a discount. They already save money by not having to travel far.
I don't envy the Park having to determine who's a low-income visitor when they show up. It would be nice but I don't know how to implement it efficiently.
Better transit options would be helpful, especially for parks like Yosemite that already run shuttles around many areas of the park, including some campgrounds and trailheads.
A lot of low-income folks in the Midwest have probably never been to a national park in their lives. Luckily for me, I have, but I'm pretty sure there's some entire states in the Midwest that have not a single national park.
Quote from: bandit957 on October 27, 2017, 07:50:32 PM
A lot of low-income folks in the Midwest have probably never been to a national park in their lives. Luckily for me, I have, but I'm pretty sure there's some entire states in the Midwest that have not a single national park.
That depends if mean actual designated National Parks or National Park units. Either way there are some nice choices in the Mid-West like Cuyohoga Valley, Mammoth Cave, Great Smoky Mountains, and even Hot Springs among the national park pool within short distance of most Mid-West population centers. That's not even going into stuff like National Seashores or anything else the Park Service manages.
In terms of the 59 National Parks, here are the 23 states that do not have a single National Park: OK, KS, NE, IA, MO, LA, MS, AL, GA, IL, WI, IN, WV, MD, DE, PA, NJ, NY, MA, NH, CT, VT, and RI.
But there is some arbitrariness built into this list. ID barely qualifies as having a National Park because it has a thin sliver of Yellowstone. AR has one because of Hot Springs, which was created at a time when bathing resorts (not just areas of great scenic beauty) could receive National Park status. OK would qualify on the same basis if Platt District National Park, another resort, still existed. And Cuyahoga Valley NP strikes me as a bit of a political project.
I think Cuyahoga Valley was established to protect the area from suburban overdevelopment. It's a decent park though. It's better than having no national park at all.
Meanwhile Trump plans to shrink Bear Ears National Monument!
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 27, 2017, 09:04:51 PM
Meanwhile Trump plans to shrink Bear Ears National Monument!
And Grand Staircase Escalante NM as well. I have to say, that is a
very hot topic in local politics. Most interests in southern UT near the monuments oppose them, but there is a large vocal pro-monument population in Salt Lake City.
Quote from: roadguy2 on October 27, 2017, 09:53:19 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 27, 2017, 09:04:51 PM
Meanwhile Trump plans to shrink Bear Ears National Monument!
And Grand Staircase Escalante NM as well. I have to say, that is a very hot topic in local politics. Most interests in southern UT near the monuments oppose them, but there is a large vocal pro-monument population in Salt Lake City.
I find that generalization incorrect. Although there was opposition to Escalante, Bears Ears was the result of three years of public outreach and the size was actually a compromised smaller size already -- local tribes wanted it to be even bigger.
Quote from: Rothman on October 29, 2017, 05:21:51 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on October 27, 2017, 09:53:19 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 27, 2017, 09:04:51 PM
Meanwhile Trump plans to shrink Bear Ears National Monument!
And Grand Staircase Escalante NM as well. I have to say, that is a very hot topic in local politics. Most interests in southern UT near the monuments oppose them, but there is a large vocal pro-monument population in Salt Lake City.
I find that generalization incorrect. Although there was opposition to Escalante, Bears Ears was the result of three years of public outreach and the size was actually a compromised smaller size already -- local tribes wanted it to be even bigger.
The ranchers and farmers in that area, as well as outside interests who want to mine coal or drill for oil, opposed the designation. But you're right that the local tribes did want it even bigger (or most of them. IIRC there was one tribe that opposed it).