The National Park Service, saying it needs the money for infrastructure maintenance, is planning a price hike that could put parks out of reach of many families and individuals.
At the new rates, the per vehicle charge will jump from $25 to $70; motorcycles will be charged $50, and individual hikers or bicyclists will see a jump from $15 to $30 per day.
The hikes, which will apply to the 5 busiest consecutive months in each affected park, will apply to the 118 parks currently charging admission. The rest will remain free. The first round of hikes will take effect in May, under Park Service plans. Among the parks in the first round are some of the biggest and most popular, including Grand Canyon, Yosemite and Yellowstone, Glacier and Zion.
Admission will still be free for those under 16, the Every Kid in a Park program and for holders of Senior Passes. However, the lifetime Senior Pass for those over 62 has now jumped from $10 to $80. A one-year senior pass at $20 will also be available.
There is a comment period for public response to the proposals, open until November 23 on the NPS website. There’s no word on when, after that, a decision will be announced. If approved, the NPS expects to take in $70 million more a year on top of the $200 million paid last year.
I’d be interested to know if concessionaires in the parks will experience similar increases at contract renewal time.
I’m not a fan of any price increases, but prefer a user tax over a general tax on everyone. Having just come from a visit to the UK, it was not rare to pay 25£/person (or more) for an admission to an historic site that might take you 2-3 hours to visit. A meal out for a family of four probably runs about $60 – $80 unless everyone is having a happy meal, so the fee increases seem in line with what things cost in 2018.
I understand your point, PHeymont, and agree that there are legitimate functions of the government we pay for (eg. police and military protection). But there are many times when one does pay for public services. For example, police responding to a false alarm, a helicopter rescue, ambulance extracting someone from a park, library rental or late fees, etc.
My point is that these price increases, which are indeed steep, are being increased to a fee that is at par with what people pay for other things. If someone wants to go, I don’t see that this fee (which is less than their average monthly cell phone bill for example) will prevent them from doing so — especially as a component of the other costs of this experience (gasoline or airfare, hotels, meals out, etc).
As far as being a barrier to the poor, my suggestion would be to have some free park days on a monthly basis — much like some of the British museums we just visited in the UK.
There’s some justice in the idea of user fees rather than general revenue (although we’d hardly apply that to police, fire, public schools, air quality or public health, etc.), but there comes a point where they become a barrier to public use—and I think I’m among those who think that this doubling and tripling of fees has gone past that point.
DrF, I think you need to re-think some of your comparisons. Many people visit parks for more than a day, with a new fee each day; for a family of four or five, those fees add up—and they are on top of the cost of transportation, lodging and meals.
What it comes down to is a decision: How important to us, as a society, is access to our great national parks and other resources? By funding them from general tax revenue, we say that it is very important. And, we are scaling the cost by ability to pay, as taxes in theory are. I cannot imagine my backyard (Prospect Park) with a tollgate at the entrance, thus limiting access for those who need it most.
“…free park days on a monthly basis — much like some of the British museums…”Though free days might help level the field, I’m not sure this example applies as most major museums in London are free, every day. The Brits seem to have a better handle on use of public funds as it applies to national treasues, as did the US several decades past. Regarding entrance fees to historic sites of all kinds in the UK, many who love visiting such places buy annual memberships to, for instance, the National Trust (£65 a year, family £115, $65 for American members through the Royal Oak Foundation), with free entrance to hundreds of sites, making visits very reasonable if just several a year are visited. The most expensive UK attractions are privately owned and aren’t really pertinent to the discussion.
I think my comparisons are valid — you might not agree with them, but that’s a different issue. I favor user fees, you don’t. That should be fine. Reasonable people should be able to disagree on a topic.
As someone who regularly visits and enjoys national parks (and who hence would pay more to use them under the new proposal), and who frequently writes about these travels on these pages, I do have some experience in this matter. Our park facilities for decades have not been improved adequately to deal with the populations who want to enjoy them. The fees are intended to deal with the maintenance backlog. The fee increases are expected to raise an extra $80 million or so a year. That is a lot of money to improve roads, toilets and the like within the park system. And all of these fees are guaranteed to stay in the NPS system and benefit it. Unlike a general budget, where tax funds are and have been easily diverted, these monies would be dedicated 100% to the parks.
When I visit the parks, it is my experience that many of the people there are foreigners, especially Europeans, especially Germans. We want them to come here to enjoy our national parks, but I don’t see a problem with their chipping in a little more to help maintain them. Only a user fee can do this.
I did read the 3 page proposal and as I understand it the peak season fee increases involve only the 17 busiest parks, only a quarter of which are near any population centers. The vast majority of NPS sites remain free. So my point about visiting the parks being an expensive undertaking because you need to travel significant distances, pay for hotels, etc. remains. The entrance fee will remain a small % of that expense. Unlike your city park, they are not just in your back yard.
The annual park pass rate for the America the Beautiful pass will remain $80/year, so for frequent visitors there is no fee increase. Historically the entrance pass you buy has always been valid for a number of days, ranging for 3-7 days depending on the park. You only pay this rate once and not on a daily basis. Whether that will continue is not clear, but the fee has not been a per day charge.
When I entered Delaware State Park I was pleased to see the entrance was free to Delaware residents. I have an address there.
“No Sir you must pay because your vehicle tag says you’re a NY resident”
“The vehicle tag says its a rental car”
“Pay up or turn around”
Discrimination.
https://www.visitlondon.com/th…#cgHkkk117OQTDdSA.97