Interior Department officials need to rethink the fees that are charged for annual park passes.
The current fee structure just doesn't make sense, and works at odds with the National Park Service's stated desire to see younger generations fall in love with the National Park System.
It was back in 2006 that the old $50 annual parks pass was phased out by the Bush administration in favor of the $80 America the Beautiful National Parks and Federal Lands Recreation Pass. At the time, then-Deputy Interior Secretary Lynn Scarlett called the pass "a cost-effective and easy option for those who plan to visit multiple federal recreation sites."
That might be so, but the rates for the passes need to be revised.
Why charge anyone who has reached 62 years old (or three years below the Internal Revenue Service's currently recognized retirement age) just $10 for a lifetime pass to all 394 units in the system, and at the same time charge someone just starting out their adult life $80 for the same pass with another significant difference: it expires 12 months later?
While we at the Traveler generally frown on park entrance fees, it's obvious that they're not going to go away anytime soon. But they could be made more equitable. Indeed, adjusting these fees could very possibly increase revenues for the National Park Service while possibly encouraging more young adults to visit the parks.
Let's look at some numbers.
In 2010, purchases of the annual $10 interagency senior pass raised $4,956,076, while sales of the annual $80 pass raised $20,327,810. Doubling the seniors' pass to $20 could turn that $4.9 million into $10 million. Do away with the "lifetime" duration of the pass and the numbers jump higher.
True, if you returned the cost of the annual parks pass back to $50, the annual revenue theoretically would fall to around $12.7 million. But that's not as significant as it might seem.
Using 2010's income figures, those changes -- upping the senior pass fee to $20 for a one-year pass and reducing the annual pass fee to $50 -- on the face of things would trim the Park Service's annual take to $22.7 million from $25.2 million. But if the senior pass were both increased to $20 and had to be renewed every year, the paper loss most likely would turn into a gain.
The guess here, too, is that a drop in the annual pass from $80 to $50 very likely would spur more annual pass sales, too, and so the chance of an overall decline in pass revenues would vanish.
If the National Park Service truly is concerned about declining park visitation and younger generations losing interest in the parks, charging those under 62 $80 for an annual pass is not the way to solve either of those concerns.
Comments
I enjoy buying the annual Pass and I usually plan to do my next vacation in 11 months and that way I can get 2 years worth out of my pass. I say raise my Taxes and lower fees but unfortunately this is up to congress. Even if they raise taxes, they do not choose to spend the money the way we might like.
Honestly, I think that the $10 fee is so ridiculous we might as well let seniors in for free.
As a southern Californian, the pass is a bit more expensive than getting the $35 National Forest Adventure Pass, and going to Joshua Tree several times a year (at $15 per day).
No, it's not a good economical decision. The price is probably too high for anyone who isn't doing a cross-country road trip. But it's not that far from being a wash.
It'd be nice to get more added value, like discounts at concessions, or entry on limited access days... now THAT would be worth something!
If all you want is to visit a few sites, then you can get passes for a specific unit( (or combination thereof). I know Muir Woods NM has a $20 annual pass, and it's good for everyone travelling in the same vehicle. Without some sort of pass, it's $5 per person. Five people in a car and it's more than covered in one visit. The strange irony is that an annual pass at John Muir NHS is also valid at Muir Woods, but I thought only cost $15 if you get it there.
http://www.nps.gov/muwo/planyourvisit/feesandreservations.htm
In Hawaii they have an annual pass that is valid at three units.
I have used an annual pass at Forest Service sites. I think it would also be valid in lieu of parking fees with a "hang tag". Mt St Helens NVM charges $8 per adult for entry to the Johnston Ridge Observatory. I don't know if it was worth more to get FS site access. I've barely visited other land agency sites that charge fees.
Also - I remember seeing the back of an older "Golden Age" pass. In addition to the agencies listed on the current passes, it said that it was valid for recreational fees for the Tennessee Valley Authority. I'm wondering what their policy is now.
Here's an idea to consider: I am not in favor of eliminating all entrance fees, but I think the fees should be limited to cover the cost of their collection. The entrance stations at many parks are some of the Service's most valuable law enforcement and visitor contact resources. The entrance station ranger gets to see and talk to everyone who enters the park. They are too valuable to give up.
Rick
You've got to be kidding me. Use the fees for the cost of collecting fees? So the purpose of collecting fees is to provide employment for fee collectors. Of course we could eliminate fee collectors and charge nothing under the same partial train of thought.
I give a lot of talks on the national parks to senior-heavy groups. I always ask them how they feel about fees. They unanimously would like to pay higher fees. Most of the seniors also like the idea of "young people" (variously defined) cheaper or free access, for the same reasons many people mentioned above.
Don't forget, only about 1/3 of the parks charge an entrance fee. This is the biggest problem with fees. The money goes to the parks that collect the fees - which is not necessarily the same parks that need the money. Some parks cannot charge fees because it is not practical or they are prohibited from doing so. Those parks are left to fend for themselves in the era of diminishing budgets.
I think that those who support these fees beleive they are well spent on the parks they see that have many visitors and NEED additional funding. Where most of the money goes, however, is actually to typical government wasteful administrative positions and initiatives, to bloated regional offices and external programs. When this agency sees new money, it doesn't go towards more rangers, better facilities or basic backlog needs; it goes towards expanding programs far from parks, where expensive travel and conferences are held to congratulate each other on ideas that have no meaning to the park visitor wondering why they haven't seen a uniformed employee, or find bathrooms and trails in disrepair.
I agree - the park service needs to adjust its fees to be more equitable and raise funding, but I am against any raising of the current fee structure as long as new funding is used for park barrel programming and sites that get little visitation. Fix what's there and remember the end user of heavily used parks and recreation areas - I'll be glad to pay more if I see the money spent there.