National Park Service considers fee hike of up to 180% for most popular parks, including Yosemite

[highplainsdem]

Source: LA Times

To raise funding for maintenance and repairs, the National Park Service said Tuesday it is considering raising vehicle entrance fees by up to 180% at the nation’s most popular parks during the peak visiting season.

Under the plan to raise funding to fix roads, bridges, campgrounds and bathrooms, the federal agency is proposing a $70 fee for each private, noncommercial vehicle — up from the current fares of $25 to $30, depending on the park. The fee for a motorcycle would more than double to $50 from the current $15 to $25. Visitors on foot or bicycle would pay $30, up from the $10 to $15.

The annual pass for all federal lands would remain $80.

The increase at 17 of the nation’s most popular parks would generate an extra $70 million a year over the $200 million now collected annually from entrance fees, the parks agency estimated. The 17 parks would include Yosemite, Joshua Tree, Yellowstone, Zion, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-national-parks-fees-20171024-story.html

[Judi Lynn]

1. Insane, and classist. So wrong, making access to these areas out of reach financially for many. n/t

[RobinA]

19. ????

How is this insane or classist? The parks are desperately in need of money, their condition and services having deteriorated markedly in the many years I have been visiting. Sure, they should be largely tax payer funded as they belong to all of us, but that's not happening, so something has to give. Disney manages to stay in business while charging astronomical prices, so it seems like people can come up with the $$$ when they want to go to a place. And the parks aren't even approaching Disney when it comes to cost. Plus, fewer people in the parks might not be a bad thing.

[alphafemale]

33. It is far less than most families would spend on a day at the fair.

Certainly less than a day at one a large amusement park. Some of those are nearly $100 a piece.

And the majority of that time is spent waiting in line.

[hatrack]

20. Here's the playbook

1. Drive down attendance through high costs
2. Accordingly, hurt the economies of nearby tourist-dependent communities
3. Degrade visitor experiences with staff & service cuts, bad infrastructure . . .
4. Except for selected concessions for lodging, food, who'll jack their prices up
5. Hand over ever-increasing responsibilities to private concessions
6. Watch as prices keep rising, visitor counts fall, local recession bites
7. Stir up angry former visitors and angry locals with astroturf so that . .
8. Parks can be shut down, parted out and sold to concession Admin allies . . .
9. Who, like Xanterra (Yos/Yel concession conglomerate) have energy divisions
10. Profit!

[trc]

21. Bingo!

The ultimate goal here is to break up and sell the parks to investors and mining/logging concerns. You make that possible by reducing the number of visitors because of cost and then claim the parks are a drain on the government. Classic rethug playbook.

[pangaia]

26. DISASTER CAPITALISM.. at it's best, or rather, worst.

[mac56]

35. Just like a slumlord

Drive down the quality of the location until people get fed up and move out -- then sell out.

[ghostsinthemachine]

2. User fees, the Libertarian answer

For everything.
Glad I just got my lifetime ten buck geezer pass.

[SCVDem]

6. Me too!

Of course it took three months and cost twenty this past May.
I believe that was raised in August.

Now I need a park that's not burning. I'm in So. Ca. and it's hot and windy.

[Tess49]

8. Same here. Received it in the mail a couple of weeks ago. n/t

[DBoon]

3. We should raise taxes slightly to pay for this

There are many small things that are part of our common heritage such as the national parks.

We should all contribute so we all can participate.

[not fooled]

4. Piss people off

at the Park Service and National Parks, hence making it easier to sell them off.

Mission accomplished!

[KY_EnviroGuy]

5. One more step toward privatization and sell-off.

Right out of the Republipuke playbook for any programs up for demolition.

1. Criticize it all to hell.
2. Reduce funding for it.
3. Raise fees and make use of it more difficult.
4. Criticize it for failures (caused by under-funding and fees).
5. Call for privatizing all or parts of it, or selling off part or all.
6. Sell it off until nothing's left but a symbolic nub.
7. Drown it in a bathtub.

[Sneederbunk]

7. What about senior passes?

[Tess49]

9. I think they are $80.00 now. n/t

[Rollo]

13. Yes, up from $10...

I got my Senior pass as soon as I turned 65, for $10. Still haven't used it, but plan on doing some park visiting when I (eventually) retire.

[Tess49]

22. That was my thinkng, too. I may want to take a road trip some day and visit some parks! n/t

[cstanleytech]

10. Sad, not that I have ever been to one and doubt I will ever be able to afford to.

[maxsolomon]

25. Where do you live?

They're all over the country, and the rates aren't raised yet.

[cstanleytech]

29. Such things still take some $ to do and when you only have enough

to scrape by pay the bills it's kind of low on the to do list.

[maxsolomon]

30. True, but where do you live?

I have a "National Park" downtown in Seattle - a Gold Rush Museum. I can get there on a bus. Maybe there is something similar near you.

But if it's not a priority, its not a priority.

[cstanleytech]

34. Augusta, GA or like I refer to it the armpit of the south.

[maxsolomon]

36. Ah, the Great Smokies is your go-to, then. 5 hour drive.

My parents took us there every year because camping was what they could afford.

I was in Augusta for a round of the Masters once. It's not so bad - I've been to Texarkana. Augusta National is the National Park of Golf. Plus, James Brown lived in Augusta!

[dalton99a]

11. Pretty soon only rich people can afford to see America

[PatrickforO]

12. I saw this. The capitalist strategy is to get the Republicans to pass a massive

tax cut for corporations and rich people. In order to do this and still have national parks, they have to pass the absolute maximum cost they can onto us, the consumers.

Remember, the libertarian mantra is, "the people who use it should have to pay, I should not."

Same concept with healthcare. It is perfectly OK with the Mercers and Charlie Koch if you die because you can't afford healthcare. Or can't afford a prescription of drugs you need to survive. They just don't want to pay.

And our friends in the GOP are making that possible. Doesn't the fact the Mercers and Koch Industries will have much lower taxes make YOU feel better? I know it does me.

[nitpicker]

14. Full list of affected parks link

https://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectID=75576

(includes Shenandoah)

[Bernardo de La Paz]

15. Poor people & middle class use parks. Fund the richy tax cut on their backs. . . nt

[d_r]

16. Interesting that

It doesn't include the most visited national park, great smoky Mountains

[fifthoffive]

28. There's a historical reason for that

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.

[d_r]

31. That is really interesting

I had noticed there was not a fee there. Maybe that is one reason it is most visited. Thank you so much for posting this!

[Historic NY]

17. Let see how they decimated Interior...

Trump’s Interior Secretary defends his plan to cut at least 4,000 staff

In multiple appearances on Capitol Hill this week, Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke stood behind his proposal to cut at least 4,000 full-time staff from the Interior Department. He has also begun an unprecedented shake-up of senior career officials. Together, the thinning of experienced career employees could have far-reaching consequences for the agency’s ability to manage public land and energy development on behalf of the American people.

The Trump administration’s proposed budget would cut the Interior Department by nearly 12 percent, forcing significant layoffs. While the reductions would impact the entire agency, those staff cuts are particularly concerning for two bureaus: the National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management.

During his first week on the job, Zinke promised to “focus on rebuilding our parks,” but the administration’s proposed budget still cuts the park service by almost $300 million. The park service’s own budget justification says that they would be forced to cut 1,242 full-time equivalent employees, a number that, in practice, could end up being much higher because many park rangers and other employees are seasonal or part-time. This would likely result in closed campgrounds and other facilities at a time when national park visitation is at an all-time high and is an economic boon to local communities.

[link:https://thinkprogress.org/trump-interior-department-cuts-23d0f97832a6/|]

[link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/05/23/trump-proposes-sharp-cuts-at-interior-department-while-pushing-for-more-drilling-on-public-lands/|]

[irisblue]

18. NPR Article, posted today. There was a radio discussion yesterday

How did a small Montana firm land a $300 million contract to restore Puerto Rico's power? (link: http://n.pr/2yPwXYV)


I will say in listening to the discussion between the Montana Public Radio reporter, Laurel Wamsley did a very careful discussion with All Things Considered host, Robert Siegel.

[KPN]

23. Good way to get the entrance stations burned down.

Fucking capitalist elites!

[Blackjackdavey]

24. This could be accidentally good policy

To tell the truth, this could be accidentally good policy as each and every one of the parks on the list, that I know of have other access points in the vicinity and any policy that reduces motor vehicle traffic in the most congested/impacted areas would actually be a good thing. If you access trailheads from a free location or enter by foot or on bicycle at a reduced rate -- that would be even better. Caveat; I'm fully aware that none of the above considerations are driving this decision -- but it could very well be a good way to reduce emissions and environmental degradation in these parks.

[BannonsLiver]

27. Despite the alarmism and nutty reactions the fee increase is needed

I'm not sure going that high is ideal, but increases have long been discussed and those who actually visit the parks and follow the news around our park system, are well aware of why they are needed.

[d_r]

32. I get what you are saying

I also think the national parks should be there for everyone. I know that the senior pass went up, but at least there is still one available. I would also wish that there waste iced Raye's for school and youth groups, and for individuals with disabilities.