National Park Service Wants to Charge EVERYONE for using the C&O Towpath

[mstone]

My gut feeling is that it’s a throwaway plan to make whatever they end up implementing look better by comparison.

If they implement the usual NPS car-pass subsidy I’ll flip out. (Pedestrian/Bike fees should be no more than the price of a car pass divided by the number of people that can fit in a minivan.) (Edit to add: I checked a couple of NPS sites and a typical formula is $5/car up to 14 people, then $3/person after that. Hikers/bikers are $3/person for every person. I just don’t have enough windshield perspective to understand why a $2.33/person subsidy for arriving in a car is justifiable.)

Charging full campsite rates for hiker-biker sites is ridiculous.

Charging separately for each side of the waterfall is just sleazy.

[dasgeh]

@mstone 103833 wrote:

If they implement the usual NPS car-pass subsidy I’ll flip out. (Pedestrian/Bike fees should be no more than the price of a car pass divided by the number of people that can fit in a minivan.) (Edit to add: I checked a couple of NPS sites and a typical formula is $5/car up to 14 people, then $3/person after that. Hikers/bikers are $3/person for every person. I just don’t have enough windshield perspective to understand why a $2.33/person subsidy for arriving in a car is justifiable.)

Does anyone know what they do if you show up with multiple people on one bike (tandem, child-carrier or otherwise)?

[mstone]

@dasgeh 103901 wrote:

Does anyone know what they do if you show up with multiple people on one bike (tandem, child-carrier or otherwise)?

Their heads explode.

In reality it probably depends on the park/ranger. Some they won’t bother charging any fee for a cyclist/hiker regardless of the stated policy because they know it’s stupid. Others will go by the letter of the law.

[PotomacCyclist]

I’ve never ridden on most of the Maryland section of the C&O path. Is it relatively easy to enter the trail away from any parking lot areas? If so, I don’t see how NPS would ever enforce fees on hikers or cyclists. They could just enter the trail away from parking lots. I don’t see NPS building any new toll stations. That costs money and NPS would have to pay a lot of money to staff those stations.

I could see the parking lots being staffed more easily. There aren’t as many of those, and it’s going to be more of a hassle for a driver to avoid the fees than a hiker because they would have to park some distance away (if that’s even possible), then walk over to the trail.

[mstone]

@PotomacCyclist 103925 wrote:

I’ve never ridden on most of the Maryland section of the C&O path. Is it relatively easy to enter the trail away from any parking lot areas? If so, I don’t see how NPS would ever enforce fees on hikers or cyclists. They could just enter the trail away from parking lots. I don’t see NPS building any new toll stations. That costs money and NPS would have to pay a lot of money to staff those stations.

I could see the parking lots being staffed more easily. There aren’t as many of those, and it’s going to be more of a hassle for a driver to avoid the fees than a hiker because they would have to park some distance away (if that’s even possible), then walk over to the trail.

On much of the towpath there is non-NPS land close enough that you can park and walk in. There is no practical way to enforce any of this. (Hence my note up top about it being a ploy to make anything that’s actually implemented look better.) What they could do is be more aggressive at the highest traffic points, but I really hate to things go that way–this is supposed to be a pleasant public park, not a place to stir up conflict between the park service & the citizens.

[dasgeh]

@mstone 103906 wrote:

Their heads explode.

In reality it probably depends on the park/ranger. Some they won’t bother charging any fee for a cyclist/hiker regardless of the stated policy because they know it’s stupid. Others will go by the letter of the law.

Better question: is a person on a bike that doesn’t have his/her own peddles a “biker” or a “passenger”?

[mstone]

@dasgeh 103935 wrote:

Better question: is a person on a bike that doesn’t have his/her own peddles a “biker” or a “passenger”?

I think one ranger will point to the regs and charge everyone on a bike, and another ranger will be too embarrassed to do so.

[KLizotte]

They could simply do like they do in some parks out West and establish an honor box system.

[notlost]

@mstone 103833 wrote:

My gut feeling is that it’s a throwaway plan to make whatever they end up implementing look better by comparison.

If they implement the usual NPS car-pass subsidy I’ll flip out. (Pedestrian/Bike fees should be no more than the price of a car pass divided by the number of people that can fit in a minivan.) (Edit to add: I checked a couple of NPS sites and a typical formula is $5/car up to 14 people, then $3/person after that. Hikers/bikers are $3/person for every person. I just don’t have enough windshield perspective to understand why a $2.33/person subsidy for arriving in a car is justifiable.)

Charging full campsite rates for hiker-biker sites is ridiculous.

Charging separately for each side of the waterfall is just sleazy.

The community that uses the C&O (including cyclists) needs to provide comments that these fee structures are crazy and need to be removed.

@dasgeh 103901 wrote:

Does anyone know what they do if you show up with multiple people on one bike (tandem, child-carrier or otherwise)?

According to the fee structure laid out it’s per person.

@mstone 103928 wrote:

On much of the towpath there is non-NPS land close enough that you can park and walk in. There is no practical way to enforce any of this. (Hence my note up top about it being a ploy to make anything that’s actually implemented look better.) What they could do is be more aggressive at the highest traffic points, but I really hate to things go that way–this is supposed to be a pleasant public park, not a place to stir up conflict between the park service & the citizens.

Agree that enforcement in a cost effective way would be limited, especially as this is a long park near large population centers.

[mstone]

@notlost 103976 wrote:

The community that uses the C&O (including cyclists) needs to provide comments that these fee structures are crazy and need to be removed.[/quote]

Already done. Comment early & comment often.

[Bruno Moore]

Sounds more like somebody at HQ figured the C&O was like the other howevermany Class 1 properties and is trying to manage it according to a standard rule.

Good F’n Luck. Some sections of the Canal have road access points a few times in a mile or roads that parallel the Canal; given anything less than Border Patrol staffing, enforcing collection of those $3 fees is going to be nigh well impossible. While the C&O may be like Antietam or Harpers Ferry NHP in some ways to a number cruncher somewhere, those ways are exceptions you can’t base a policy off of.

Doesn’t the Appalachian Trail follow the Canal for a short bit coming into Harpers Ferry as it comes off Maryland Heights before crossing the railroad/pedestrian bridge into town and the HFNHP and up to ATC HQ? Is the NPS seriously considering charging AT through hikers $3 to hike on the Canal, then another $3 to enter and exit the national historic park (you pretty much have to pass through it if you’re coming in by that bridge) on their way up to the showers? Somehow, I really don’t see that happening.

[Kolohe]

Though you do pay (at one did fifteen to twenty years ago) when hiking through the portion AT that goes through Shenandoah NP. So there is precedent (tho not saying it’s right)

[Alcova cyclist]

I think I’ll submit this in the comments, but if they really want to raise some cash, while at the same time drastically improving the “park-like qualities” of an NPS property in the Capital region, they should start charging motorists to use GWP, not cyclists to use the C&O.

Set up toll booths at each entrance to the GWP, and while they’re at it, enforce a 35 mph speed limit throughout, just like on Skyline Drive.

This might help the reality of the GWP get a little closer to the description of the GWP on the NPS website: “The George Washington Memorial Parkway was designed for recreational driving. It links sites that commemorate important episodes in American history and preserve habitat for local wildlife. The parkway and its associated trails provide a scenic place to play and rest in the busy Washington, DC metropolitan area.”

[ewilliams0305]

I biked from Pittsburgh earlier this summer (GAP/C&O). The main draw for the trip was, well, FREE! I got to see many nice MD PA towns along the way and spend money in there restaurants and local businesses. There are actually entire towns such as Brunswick (just one example) that have been revitalized by the tourism the C&O canal brings through. After the railroad fizzled away many towns along the canal were crushed. I’ve always been very proud to live in MD and be a part a gem like the Canal. There’s very few other uninterrupted 180+ mile trails that can be hiked, biked, explored, and with the hiker biker sites survived. Charging for use could be very bad for the local economies, not to mention lots of the canal is already being maintained by volunteer groups. I can assure you if I had to spend that kind of cash to travel the canal there’s many other places I probably would have ended up…

[PotomacCyclist]

@Alcova cyclist 105274 wrote:

I think I’ll submit this in the comments, but if they really want to raise some cash, while at the same time drastically improving the “park-like qualities” of an NPS property in the Capital region, they should start charging motorists to use GWP, not cyclists to use the C&O.

Set up toll booths at each entrance to the GWP, and while they’re at it, enforce a 35 mph speed limit throughout, just like on Skyline Drive.

This might help the reality of the GWP get a little closer to the description of the GWP on the NPS website: “The George Washington Memorial Parkway was designed for recreational driving. It links sites that commemorate important episodes in American history and preserve habitat for local wildlife. The parkway and its associated trails provide a scenic place to play and rest in the busy Washington, DC metropolitan area.”

I wonder about “recreational driving.” I guess some people enjoy driving. But the phrase makes me think of this recent story on Fredericksburg.com, where the author pokes a little fun at himself and others in small-town Culpeper:

http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/local/columns/driving-in-circles-a-big-deal-in-culpeper/article_f0bfe9ba-6d1b-545b-9de4-e051d0fc74cc.html

***
As for the C&O fee proposal, I’m not sure what it will really do.

Speaking on WAMU 88.5’s The Kojo Nnamdi Show on Monday, Bob Vogel, the director of the National Capital Region of the National Park Service, said that the proposed fee increases would help make up for cuts to the Park Service’s overall budget.

…

But even if the new fees are adopted, Vogel said that much of the enforcement would be based on the honor system.

“We’re certainly not planning on putting entrance stations up, or having rangers stop visitors while they’re hiking or biking on the towpath,” he said. Instead, most visitors entering outside of Great Falls — where fees have been charged since 2002 — would be expected to pay at unmanned fareboxes.

Sunny Pitcher, the director of the Potomac River Access Foundation and president of Potomac Paddle Sports, said that he supports the proposed fee increases.

“The big picture here is that this is one of the busiest national parks in America, and its funding is disproportionate to visitation,” he said. “Our national parks are America’s best idea, there are people in D.C. who pay more for a very complex coffee drink every day than an entrance fee.”

Vogel stressed that the fee increases are not final, and encouraged users of the C&O Canal to weigh in. Written comments will be accepted until Feb. 22 — go here to submit yours — and four public meetings will be held over the next three weeks: Jan. 21 in Brunswick, Jan. 27 in Hagerstown, Jan. 29 in Cumberland, and Feb. 5 in Glen Echo.

http://wamu.org/news/15/01/12/national_park_service_proposes_new_fees_for_co_canal

[Author]

Posts