On closing parks to vehicular traffic

[Tipi Walter]

The best hiking i've found in Canada is on Crown Land (land owned by the people), and there are zero fee's... National or Provincial Parks on the other hand do have fee's but also provide services that attract people.... Another reason to avoid parks and stick to public lands... No amenities means no crowds and a whole giant forest all to yourself!

Short and sweet. Crowds in Parks translates to cars and rolling traffic, take easy access away and interior park roadways and you cut out at least 50% of the overcrowding.

You can walk the AT for free though.

This is the part that doesn't make sense to me. The "Fees Are Good" crowd never talk about charging a nightly fee to hike or backpack the Appalachian Trail. Why not?

In addition to helping support the park (as many here have pointed out), fees and passes are charged in some parks to regulate the number of visitors, in short to keep then from being loved to death. Remember, the U.S. is a country of 300+ million people and not everybody knows how to behave responsibly in the wild.

Regulating numbers would be easy by limiting car access and roads. This will eventually have to be done as the population skyrockets towards 450 million by 2050. Why do places like Yellowstone and the Smokies have car campgrounds for motor homes and RVs? Who's in charge? Haven't we had enough of wheeled traffic in all it's clever forms? Why can't people park in one huge designated lot outside the Park and walk in from there?

If it makes you feel any better, I've never seen any wilderness on the east cost of the USA. It's all been logged within the past 100 years, excepting for pockets too expensive to get logging machinery to.
The illusion of wilderness, in a way is a theme park, and the dollars collected are probably used up in litter pickup and unwarrented "rescue" missions of unprepared touristas going for a walk in the woods that ends up being a little more uncomfortable than they bargained for. I can't say I don't mind paying for it, but that's just the way it is. Many of the parking areas where fees are charged have overused trails which I avoid like the plague during the peak of tourist season.

Here again, too easy access by the rolling couch potatoes. Close the roads to these places and make what once was remote difficult again to reach. On foot. BTW, there's a 4000 acre wilderness valley in the Slickrock/Kilmer area of NC that has never been logged.

[Dogwood]

Short and sweet. Crowds in Parks translates to cars and rolling traffic, take easy access away and interior park roadways and you cut out at least 50% of the overcrowding.

I wholeheartedly agree Tipi, but do you truely think this will happen on a large enough scale to make a difference? I woud guess that the National Park Service, in its present form, is under pressure by some from within and many others involved in making a profit from industrial tourism(fast food, hotels, petroleum industry, automobile industry, road building contractors, politicians, lawers, gift shop owners, etc, etc.) to allow greater access by motorized vehicles. Seems to be the philosophy in some national parks, build more roads and they will come and with them comes their money. Let's build roads! Let's exploit the nation's natural resources and wilderness for profit. Very often the profiteers have strong political and economic allies or government officials themselves believe in economically developing - code word for exploiting the wilderness for profit - the national parks.

If one wants to look at some successful vehicular traffic solutions look at what Yosemite NP has done in the valley with their bus system, or the Grand Canyon NP bus system on the S. Rim, or the way Zion NP has drastically cut traffic congestion and pollution by instituting a bus system.

Here again, too easy access by the rolling couch potatoes. Close the roads to these places and make what once was remote difficult again to reach.

It's designed this way because this is what Americans have been brainwashed into believing is a viable lifestyle. If someone(???) can control your movements they can readily contol the information that is most readily availble to you. If they can control the flow of info to you they can contol your thoughts and beliefs. Welcome to the ring through the nose crowd here in America.

I like to paraphrase an article I read in Reader's Digest not long ago. In a study conducted across the U.S. in 1997 statistics showed that the avg. American in the study walked an avg. of 9.7 miles per week which included the miles walk while at work and at home. In 2007 a similar study was conducted that saw those numbers drop to less than 2 miles per week! If we are to believe these figures hold true across the U.S. Americans are walking 1/5 of what they were just a decade earlier!

We are turning into a couch potato society! with grave consequences!

[Alligator]

...
It's designed this way because this is what Americans have been brainwashed into believing is a viable lifestyle. If someone(???) can control your movements they can readily contol the information that is most readily availble to you. If they can control the flow of info to you they can contol your thoughts and beliefs. Welcome to the ring through the nose crowd here in America.
...

So you are saying the government is controlling your thoughts with cars and/or mass transit. People can still choose to walk into the park. There is still a choice. That's not control, there are options. How you personally choose to do it is your own responsibility.

And folks can't viably visit the parks by walking anyway. One gets in the car or takes a bus, plane or automobile to get there. People in New York are not going to walk or bike to Redwoods NP for instance.

[flemdawg1]

http://www.bluemousemonkey.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/wall-e-human-300x224.jpg

We are turning into a couch potato society! with grave consequences!

So whats wrong w/ couch potatoes?

[LIhikers]

Sure glad I didn't have to walk to Denali...
Although we did several backcountry hikes while we were there. Oh, and the bus system there seemed to work well too.

[TD55]

The NPS has to serve a diverse population. Not every tax paying citizen is unable to "hike into" a park because they are "a couch potato". Some are disabled, some are seniors, some are just out of shape. Some of them may have time restraints.
When you look at the big picture, it's alot more complicated than just preventing traffic into the park. As it stands today, you can go to the busyest parks in the country, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Glacier etc. and see hoards of auto traffic and people, however there are numerous trails in all of these parks that will take you away from the traffic and hoards.

[berninbush]

I don't understand why it has to be an "all or nothing" scenario. Tipi seems to be saying that he wants ALL national parks to be closed to ALL vehicle traffic, so that everyone has to walk in to any "wilderness" area.

As others have pointed out, not everybody is capable of 15 mile hikes. Some have made poor choices in diet and exercise. (Have you ever made poor choices?) Some have jobs that don't allow them to be in top shape. Some have illnesses or injuries over which they have no control. Some people simply don't enjoy long hikes, but like short ones-- personal preference.

So why not have some wilderness areas that don't allow cars, and some that have restricted access, and some with less restricted access... to please the whole range of taxpayers who make forest care possible? Then you can charge higher fees for the least-restricted areas that need the most care, so you're not penalizing the people who have the least impact on nature. And just maybe, the contact with the natural world will inspire some people to get more in shape and explore deeper.

Oh wait, isn't that pretty much what we've got?

[TD55]

[quote=Tipi Walter;8595



Regulating numbers would be easy by limiting car access and roads. This will eventually have to be done as the population skyrockets towards 450 million by 2050. Why do places like Yellowstone and the Smokies have car campgrounds for motor homes and RVs? Who's in charge? Haven't we had enough of wheeled traffic in all it's clever forms? Why can't people park in one huge designated lot outside the Park and walk in from there?


[/quote]

The numbers are already regulated and controlled. Places like Yellowstone and the Smokies have car and RV camping because it's a free country and everyone has a right to enjoy our National Parks. What are you going to tell a 70 year old couple that has worked and payed taxes all thier lives and decided to travel around the country and see the sites they never got to see because they were to busy working and paying taxes? They can't go to Yellowstone or the Smokies because the backpacker/hikers don't want to share?

[snowhoe]

So you are saying the government is controlling your thoughts with cars and/or mass transit. People can still choose to walk into the park. There is still a choice. That's not control, there are options. How you personally choose to do it is your own responsibility.

And folks can't viably visit the parks by walking anyway. One gets in the car or takes a bus, plane or automobile to get there. People in New York are not going to walk or bike to Redwoods NP for instance.

Well put. I wanted to add something to that but.... you pretty much summed it up. Thanks.

[Hikerhead]

How do you get to the trail heads? I drive. If you walk to get to the trail heads then you might have a legitimate gripe. Close the roads and the first and loudest complainers will be the hikers.

[TD55]

I think you have to look at each park, trail, area on an individual basis. I think that is how they do it now. There certainly is a way to petition the NPS on closing off certain areas or roads or parking areas, or for making various changes inside a National Park. It has been done by bikers and snowmo's. No reason why you can't work to preserve a specific area or trail.

[MintakaCat]

I don't think Park Service will be able to ever close 441 throught the GSMNP. Not after the huge legal battle on the Road to Nowhere. I think the Feds are offering $53 Million to settle the issue.

[Ox97GaMe]

They wont be able to close 441 through the Smokies until they build a better way to get around the park. Currently, it is almost a 3 hr drive to get from one side of the park to the other if you drive around instead of through.

Nobody really wants to see a 4 lane highway constructed around the park, although that is currently what we have from Bryson City to Cosby. Maybe if they actually finish the Foothills parkway it would eleviate some of the traffic that is passing through the park. But, that isnt likely to happen any time soon either.

[Egads]

I loved that Zion NP was open to propane park shuttle buses, bikes, & feet

[Tipi Walter]

So you are saying the government is controlling your thoughts with cars and/or mass transit. People can still choose to walk into the park. There is still a choice. That's not control, there are options. How you personally choose to do it is your own responsibility.

And folks can't viably visit the parks by walking anyway. One gets in the car or takes a bus, plane or automobile to get there. People in New York are not going to walk or bike to Redwoods NP for instance.

My point was a big parking lot outside the park and then entrance on foot from there, obviously not walking from New York to the Smokies. Leaving people to choose how to enter a Park is foolish, as a great percentage of people will take the easy way and go in by car. They may even decide to go in and land with a helicopter if they have enough money. And so we have designated wilderness areas which limits human choice in this matter. And here's the choice: On foot or horseback or not at all. In this day and age of over development, road building and sprawl, this seems the best solution to try to save what's left.

I don't understand why it has to be an "all or nothing" scenario. Tipi seems to be saying that he wants ALL national parks to be closed to ALL vehicle traffic, so that everyone has to walk in to any "wilderness" area.

As others have pointed out, not everybody is capable of 15 mile hikes. Some have made poor choices in diet and exercise. (Have you ever made poor choices?) Some have jobs that don't allow them to be in top shape. Some have illnesses or injuries over which they have no control. Some people simply don't enjoy long hikes, but like short ones-- personal preference.

So why not have some wilderness areas that don't allow cars, and some that have restricted access, and some with less restricted access... to please the whole range of taxpayers who make forest care possible? Then you can charge higher fees for the least-restricted areas that need the most care, so you're not penalizing the people who have the least impact on nature. And just maybe, the contact with the natural world will inspire some people to get more in shape and explore deeper.

Oh wait, isn't that pretty much what we've got?

The "all or nothing" scenario comes into play when you survey the American landscape and see where it's headed. The wheel addicted have access to a huge percentage of land already, my thought is to save what's left and to do this by closing Park roads and designating more places as official Wilderness Areas. Even then, I see a future of postage stamp wilderness areas surrounded by tourist helicopter flyovers, Gatlinburgs, RV campgrounds, surrounding motorcycle "parkway racetracks", and all the rest.

The numbers are already regulated and controlled. Places like Yellowstone and the Smokies have car and RV camping because it's a free country and everyone has a right to enjoy our National Parks. What are you going to tell a 70 year old couple that has worked and payed taxes all thier lives and decided to travel around the country and see the sites they never got to see because they were to busy working and paying taxes? They can't go to Yellowstone or the Smokies because the backpacker/hikers don't want to share?

That 70 year old couple might live in a free country but they can't drive their behemoth RV into Cohutta or the Citico or the Slickrock or a hundred other wilderness areas. If everyone has the right to enjoy our National Parks, then why not in a helicopter? A hang glider? An off-road four wheeler? ATVs? With freedom comes abuse.

[DAJA]

I don't understand why it has to be an "all or nothing" scenario. Tipi seems to be saying that he wants ALL national parks to be closed to ALL vehicle traffic, so that everyone has to walk in to any "wilderness" area.

Our current society is "all or nothing"... There is no option for opting out... It's all progress, continuous growth, always expanding, always consuming more and more... We already live "all or nothing" and seem to be motivated to consume "all" until there is "nothing"... This includes nature and wilderness...

Tipi's idea is indeed interesting and deserves some open minded consideration... Close the parks to all traffic and create a wilderness area oasis for those seeking an escape from modernity... I like it!

However, as Tipi suggested, likely in time as our society gobbles up more and more real estate most NP would eventually end up looking like Central Park with nothing but consumer wonderland surrounding it...

[Hikerhead]

Our current society is "all or nothing"... There is no option for opting out... It's all progress, continuous growth, always expanding, always consuming more and more... We already live "all or nothing" and seem to be motivated to consume "all" until there is "nothing"... This includes nature and wilderness...

Tipi's idea is indeed interesting and deserves some open minded consideration... Close the parks to all traffic and create a wilderness area oasis for those seeking an escape from modernity... I like it!

However, as Tipi suggested, likely in time as our society gobbles up more and more real estate most NP would eventually end up looking like Central Park with nothing but consumer wonderland surrounding it...

Like it or not, it's not going to happen. Hikers are a small percentage of the general population. These national parks were paid for by the people, for the people and most of them are not going to go too far into the woods,well maybe 20 yards down the trail to leave a little ball of tissue. Me, I'm thankful that we have our National Parks and that there's roads in them so that maybe we can take our older folks there to see a little bit of it. Another thought, if cars are not allowed, how are the maintainers going to get there to maintain the trails that we have? Just my 2 cents worth.

[DAJA]

Of course it won't happen.... As I said, there's no opting out.... You gotta tow the line, right.... Sad that we've so easily given up everything that makes us human in exchange for the very "advances" that will eventually end us...

As an aside, you mention that the parks are paid for by the people for the people... So if our taxes provide these places for us, why then the user fee's?

[Jayboflavin04]

BRAVO Tipi!!!

[Hikerhead]

Of course it won't happen.... As I said, there's no opting out.... You gotta tow the line, right.... Sad that we've so easily given up everything that makes us human in exchange for the very "advances" that will eventually end us...

As an aside, you mention that the parks are paid for by the people for the people... So if our taxes provide these places for us, why then the user fee's?

I agree with your last statement 100%. I never have figured that one out.