National Park Service proposes more than doubling the entrance fees at 17 popular national parks

[pauldun170]

Waiting for Trump to tweet that national parks take up valuable land that could be used for golf courses

The National Park Service proposes more than doubling the entrance fees at 17 popular national parks, including Grand Canyon, Yosemite, and Yellowstone, to help pay for infrastructure improvements.
Under the agency's proposal, the entrance fee for a private vehicle would jump to $70 during peak season, from its current rate of $25 to $30.
The cost for a motorcycle entering the park could increase to $50, from the current fee of $15 to $25. The cost for people entering the park on foot or on bike could go to $30, up from the current rate of $10 to $15.
The cost of the annual pass, which permits entrance into all federal lands and parks, would remain at $80.
The proposal would affect the following 17 national parks during the 2018 peak season:

• Arches
• Bryce Canyon
• Canyonlands
• Denali
• Glacier
• Grand Canyon
• Grand Teton
• Olympic
• Sequoia & Kings Canyon
• Yellowstone
• Yosemite
• Zion
• Acadia
• Mount Rainier
• Rocky Mountain
• Shenandoah
• Joshua Tree

http://www.cnn.com/travel/article/national-park-service-fee-proposal/index.html

 

[vi edit]

So yeah, double the rates, watch attendance drop then proclaim that national parks are low energy and a waste of tax dollars to operate. MAGA! MINE ALL GROUNDS AGAIN!

 

[hal2kilo]

Waiting for Trump to tweet that national parks take up valuable land that could be used for golf courses

That will keep the riff raff out. MAGA!!!!!

 

[ivwshane]

Finally the rich will be able to get outdoors without having to be bothered by the pleebs!

 

[dullard]

The national park service is essentially bankrupt. Their responsibility keeps going up (presidents and congress love to add a new park, monument, preserve, historical site, etc. that all need major repairs/renovations). However, the same president/congress never allocates more money to the national parks. So, the result is that the accumulated maintenance that is being left undone is staggering.

At the same time, (I blame Facebook and Instagram showing how great the parks are), attendance is sky high. Attendance is doubling or tripling every few years. I've been a yearly pass holder for years. You used to be able to just drive right up to a hike any time of day, park, and have a great time. Now, if you aren't in the National Park before 8 am, you probably aren't going to be able to park anywhere at all (7 am on holidays).

All these users add more and more to the costs (more wear and tear, more trash, more overflowing portable bathrooms, more demands for rangers, etc.) These are more and more costs that NPS can't afford.

Luckily, markets have a solution to all of the problems when you are short of money and have too many guests. Raise prices. Plain and simple. Then have a few free days for the poor (they already do this).

Oh, and be consistent with collecting money. For example, on most summer weekends, if you aren't in the Rocky Mountain National Park before they staff the gates, you can't hike. But, they let anyone in free of charge before they staff the gates. Thus, if you want to use the park, you basically now get in for free. Staff the booths 1 hour earlier and they'd make millions more.

That said, raising the prices to up to $70 when yearly passes are $80 means that everyone who goes will be a yearly pass holder and parking might just get worse. Raise MY price too.

 

[Thebobo]

$70 is absurd.

 

[repoman0]

That's still dirt cheap for what you get. They're doing what they need to do to budget for infrastructure improvements and maintenance, since congress won't budget for it ... and maintenance is sorely needed.

I fully support this ... if Dump and Repub voters voted to price themselves out of the only vacation they can afford so the rest of us can visit a less crowded, better maintained park for a menial fee increase, so be it. I'll gladly pay it and support raising the price even more.

 

[dullard]

$70 is absurd.

$70 for a week of unlimited entry for a carload of people? That works out to be $10/day for the carload or ~$2/person/day depending on the number of people. What other top-notch entertainment is that cheap?

 

[ivwshane]

That's still dirt cheap for what you get. They're doing what they need to do to budget for infrastructure improvements and maintenance, since congress won't budget for it ... and maintenance is sorely needed.

I fully support this ... if Dump and Repub voters voted to price themselves out of the only vacation they can afford so the rest of us can visit a less crowded, better maintained park for a menial fee increase, so be it. I'll gladly pay it and support raising the price even more.

And that's the real issue, Congress not doing its job to protect and maintain American interests at home on things like infrastructure.

Lets keep voting for incompetent government though (Republicans), its probably not going to affect you./s

 

[Jhhnn]

$70 seems steep. There's some balance point between fees & attendance that will maximize revenue & that may well be counter productive.

When the priority is coddling the uber wealthy then everybody else takes the high hard one by default.

 

[repoman0]

$70 seems steep. There's some balance point between fees & attendance that will maximize revenue & that may well be counter productive.

They don't just need to maximize revenue ... they need to make enough to pay for maintenance and infrastructure, which is a function of number of visitors. Many parks are ridiculously overcrowded lately so the entrance fee needs to go up ... simple as that.

As pointed out already in the thread, $70 for a pass for multiple people that lasts a week is hardly breaking the bank. Put four people in the car and it's like $17 per person ... not much more than a movie.

 

[dullard]

$70 seems steep. There's some balance point between fees & attendance that will maximize revenue & that may well be counter productive.

When the priority is coddling the uber wealthy then everybody else takes the high hard one by default.

$70 might barely get you one ticket to a sporting event or one broadway show, or similar entertainment that lasts a few hours at most. $70 might get you two tickets to a good museum, but again that probably will only last you a few hours. $70 certainly won't get you into a golf course if it isn't a dinky unknown location. I doubt $70 would get you into a Disney park (or similar), but I actually don't know the price of those these days. $70 might get you a single ski lift ticket for one day at a cheap ski resort.

$70 for the NPS gives a whole carload of people unlimited access for a week to an unlimited number of parks. I just don't see it as steep at all compared to other things you might do on a vacation.

 

[Thebobo]

$70 for a week of unlimited entry for a carload of people? That works out to be $10/day for the carload or ~$2/person/day depending on the number of people. What other top-notch entertainment is that cheap?

I started to go to national parks before there was a fee. And thats the way they should be, free. We already pay taxes to take care of the Parks. Trump wants to slash the park service budget yet again. So yes it's absurd.

And you assume too much. What if it's just you in the car?

 

[Thebobo]

They don't just need to maximize revenue ... they need to make enough to pay for maintenance and infrastructure, which is a function of number of visitors. Many parks are ridiculously overcrowded lately so the entrance fee needs to go up ... simple as that.

As pointed out already in the thread, $70 for a pass for multiple people that lasts a week is hardly breaking the bank. Put four people in the car and it's like $17 per person ... not much more than a movie.

You assume to much as well. So why do we pay taxes?

 

[senseamp]

Vote the Republican bums out. Or pay up.

 

[dullard]

I started to go to national parks before there was a fee. And thats the way they should be, free. We already pay taxes to take care of the Parks. Trump wants to slash the park service budget yet again. So yes it's absurd.

And you assume too much. What if it's just you in the car?

I said it depends on how many people. If it is just you, then it is $10/day. If you only want to go for one day, and only just you, then maybe consider starting up an Uber-like sharing service if you really think that is a common occurance.

The federal budget for the NPS is less than $10/citizen. Yes, technically are taxed for it, but if you want to go that way, we are well under taxed for it. I also think that having users of a location/service pay for that location/service is a very fair way of doing it.

We can't have them free. Have you tried to get to Zion in the last year or two? You are in line for multiple hours, if you can get in at all. Once you get in, the buses are so overpacked that you have to wait for 3 to 5 buses until you can force your way into one. And it isn't like you can rebuild the canyon to add roads and parking. Overcrowding is a major, major problem and charging users is about the only good way of doing it. You also have the lottery system, but I've never once won any of those lotteries for anything I wanted to do in the NPS. Meaning that I've had to cancel multiple vacation plans since I can't seem to win the lotteries to get an entry permit. I would very gladly pay up if I could (and then have free weekends set aside for the poor), but with the lotteries, I can't.

 

[repoman0]

You assume to much as well. So why do we pay taxes?

To pay for the military, weapons and for our leaders to fly everywhere in private jets.

Something needs to be done about the overcrowding in certain national parks. Raising the entrance fees is one thing to try, introducing quotas is another.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/28/national-parks-tourism-bad-behavior

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/05/yellowstone-national-parks-tourism/

I suggest reading the nat geo link in particular to hear what the people actually in charge of park maintenance think. Hint: the "free" model is no longer working.

 

[Zorba]

I have mixed feelings about this. One, I don't think parks should be reserved for rich people. I know when I was growing up, $70 would've been a big deal to my family, especially if we were visiting multiple parks on one trip.

However, something needs to be done about the overcrowding on of the parks. Everything in and near the parks are very expensive, so if you can afford a $200/nt hotel room or $75/nt tent site, you should be able to afford $70/week entrance fee. If it discourages day-trippers, maybe that is a good thing to help crowds and it may also decrease damage impacts from the people that don't really care for the environment and are just checking off a box.

I am against them cutting the federal budget, then increasing fees to cover it.

I think more parks should add fees, though, and there should be more of a push to inspire people to visit the less visited parks

The annual pass (which I have) should also double in price. Charging $70 for a week or $80 for a year is dumb.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Well, yeah, the price increase blows. However, if they need additional money on top of the federal funds to keep providing the service, then so be it. $70 is still pretty cheap if you stay for more than one day and have somebody else with you to split the cost.

 

[Thebobo]

We can't have them free.

Why? We did for over a hundred years. How will charging more help overcrowding? Taxes should pay for park infrastructure and maintenance.

 

[Thebobo]

Well, yeah, the price increase blows. However, if they need additional money on top of the federal funds to keep providing the service, then so be it. $70 is still pretty cheap if you stay for more than one day and have somebody else with you to split the cost.

Everyone assumes more people in your car, but it's irrelevant we should not have to pay, we already pay taxes. Congress needs to give the Park Service what it needs. Maybe a few less warships and billion dollar aircraft.

 

[bshole]

$70 for a week of unlimited entry for a carload of people? That works out to be $10/day for the carload or ~$2/person/day depending on the number of people. What other top-notch entertainment is that cheap?

IKR, a single ticket to a Packer game is $200 or more. $70 to see some of the most beautiful natural jewels of the natural world seems cheap. Perhaps there should be an extra fee for tourists from other countries (they represent 30-40% of park visitors). They are not paying the tax for that park that Americans are.

 

[repoman0]

Why? We did for over a hundred years. How will charging more help overcrowding? Taxes should pay for park infrastructure and maintenance.

How will charging more NOT help overcrowding? As prices increase, people think more carefully about whether or not they actually want to do something. People who appreciate the landscape and serenity will obviously still go, people who don't really give a shit will stay home or go see a movie.

Keeping the park entrance model as it is would be the ultimate FYGM to current and future generations. Older generations got to experience nature as it was meant to be experienced -- quietly, undisturbed and without lines. Younger generations get to deal with hours-long waits, crowds, and selfie takers who don't really care about being there, not to mention the environmental impact of all those crowds.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Everyone assumes more people in your car, but it's irrelevant we should not have to pay, we already pay taxes. Congress needs to give the Park Service what it needs. Maybe a few less warships and billion dollar aircraft.

I'll repeat myself. If federal funding is not enough, then NPS has no choice but to raise entrance fees to stay open. They can't make congress allocate them more funds.

 

[bshole]

How will charging more NOT help overcrowding? As prices increase, people think more carefully about whether or not they actually want to do something. People who appreciate the landscape and serenity will obviously still go, people who don't really give a shit will stay home or go see a movie.

Keeping the park entrance model as it is would be the ultimate FYGM to current and future generations. Older generations got to experience nature as it was meant to be experienced -- quietly, undisturbed and without lines. Younger generations get to deal with hours-long waits, crowds, and selfie takers who don't really care about being there, not to mention the environmental impact of all those crowds.

Here in Wisconsin, Door county used to be a beautiful place to visit. They opened up a two lane highway for tourists and it is now hell on earth. I will never go there again.