ak08820

Just came across this.

National Park Service proposes entrance/camping fees for C&O Canal Towpath » Biking Bis

Try to oppose the proposed fees by responding at
NPS PEPC - C&O Canal Invites Feedback on Proposal to Increase and Expand Entrance and Other Fees Park-wide

mrveloman

The title of this post is so wrong! It should be "Read and Act Now!" Go to the Park Service site and post your response complaining about the fee or at least the amount of the fee. Seriously, $20 a night - for that amount I'd go anywhere else and I have a senior pass.

Mike

headloss 

I don't like riding the C&O as is... a fee would just guarantee I bypassed it! I can understand a camping fee (not $20!!!?) or even a fee if they took better care of the trail itself as a tradeoff.

ak08820

I was not sure if the title was correct. However, I checked the phrase "read and weep" and it seems I used it correctly.
Urban Dictionary: read it and weep
And, I did provide the URLs to respond.

bgraham111

I like the G&O and GAP, but I do agree a small fee (or even a donation box) would be OK, as long as it went towards making the HB sites a little nicer. But $20 is kind of crazy. And entry fees? That wouldn't even work.

(And I pay for entry when I go to bike Antietam.)

spinnaker

I have no problem with paying fees but I think the plan for changing for camping is unworkable. First how to enforce it? Security along the C&O are already none existent. I don't see the park service spending valuable resources on enforcement. THen there is collecting. Same problem. Finally vandalism, those boxes are going to be awfully attractive to thieves if not emptied daily.

I would rather see a fee paid by everyone to use the trail.

prathmann

I think the objection to the phrase was just that it implies that the bad news is final and unchangeable, therefore the only response is to weep. In this case the NPS is still in the public comment phase so there's a chance to oppose the proposal and it may well be changed significantly before anything is implemented. Just sent in my comment objecting mainly to the Hike&Bike fee as being excessive and would tend to encourage illicit camping that may well result in increased costs. A more reasonable fee would be more likely to be respected and should still be sufficient to cover the actual costs associated with hiking and bicycling campers.

gpsblake

I don't mind paying the entrance fees.. reasonable... Heck, I wouldn't even mind a 5 dollar a night camping fee... But a 20 dollar a night fee for a camping site that doesn't even have a bathroom or running water is hogwash or bull-something....

I can also see towns like Hancock being upset about this, as less riders means less revenue for them.

irwin7638

When it comes to the camping fee, it seems that the money collected would have to be spent on enforcement rather than maintenance so there is no real benefit. The entrance fee was tried at a local trail and was ultimately abandoned for much the same reason.

Marc

Altair 4

I've read elsewhere that the proposal would exclude fees on the DC end of the trail. You know, the part that gets ridden the most. That seems unfair although the whole idea of fee collecting would appear unworkable.

indyfabz

I was under the impression that at least some have those amenities, although I have heard that the water is often terrible tasting.

In any event, $20 even if there is water and a porta-pottie is high. As a comparison, Glacier N.P. has $5 hiker-biker spots in one campground that I know of. The place has picnic tables, a bear box, running water and flush toilets. On the GAP, Husky Haven in Rockwood charges $10/night. You get a porta-potty, picnic table and free firewood. While there is no running water at the campground, in town there is a companion guest house with gallon milk jugs you can fill to take back to the campground. The $10 fee also entitles you to use the shower/bath house at the guest house site as well as the other amenities in the common area of the guest house. There is even a bike washing station.

axolotl

In a radio interview this week on a DC public radio station, the director of the National Capital Region of the National Park Service said that much of the enforcement of the proposed fees would be based on the honor system. He also said that the fees would make up for overall budget cuts by Congress to the National Park Service budget.

National Park Service Proposes New Fees For C&O Canal To Cover Budget Shortfalls | WAMU 88.5 - American University Radio

staehpj1

The ones I have seen have a only picnic table, a hand pump, and a portapot and yes the water from some of the pumps is pretty awful. Are there some on the C&O with more amenities? I didn't think so.

ak08820

I urge all folks to post this in responses to NPS in the link provided in the original post.

badger_biker 

I just entered my comments and I encourage all of you to do so if you have not and to pass this information on to any other cycle tourists you know.
The $20 per night camping rate would eliminate this from my bucket list of tours. I don't oppose the suggested per person pass fees but the hiker-biker sites should not cost more than $5 per night or $20 per 7 days based on what is provided.

I had the opportunity to bike the section near DC a number of times when I was working out there and it would be a real shame for this great trail to be rendered too expensive for most cyclists.

Thanks for posting this ako8820!

alan s 

The idea is unworkable and unenforceable. I posted a comment in opposition, and may attend a meeting. If the NPS really wants to start charging, how about entrance fees to events on the National Mall, such as 4th of July fireworks and other performances? Those events actually require a huge security presence and clean up expense. The cost to repair damage to the grass is apparently quite significant. Why pick on the humble hiker/bikers, who remove their trash, use little water, and otherwise don't need much else other than fallen tree removal, undergrowth trimming and minor towpath upkeep? The general fund is more than adequate for that, I would think.

Philly Tandem

I've commented on this and other NPS fee increases on their response sites. In general, I accept that there is a cost to things, and that comparative to, say seeing a movie at a theater for $12 a seven-day pass to a park for $20 is a good deal. But one continuing issue I have with the NPS is how it often actively discourages the very self-propelled and low-impact activities it should be embracing (like biking). In just about every National Park I've been in, biking is definitely a second or third-class activity.

The $20 for the hiker-biker sites, while steep, is not terribly out of line with other federal campgrounds. They do offer running water (of a sort, even if it's nasty), a portable toilet, picnic table, and fire ring. All of that costs money, especially the toilet, unlike backcountry camping in other national parks, which is generally wilderness camping with no amenities (trail shelters notwithstanding). Note that as I read it, the $20 is per SITE, not per person. Husky Haven is $10 per person. Hiker-biker sites at other parks are $5-10 per person. So, if you have two people, it kind of equals out. If you have three, then you come out ahead compared with a per-person fee.

HOWEVER, I would prefer to see a lower per-person, rather than a site fee, as I assume most people biking the trail are doing so singly or in smaller groups. Also, it's not uncommon for multiple unrelated groups/people to share a H/B site if needed. And, finally, if there are fees involved, I wonder if having to reserve the sites ahead of time is far off? That would really kill a lot of the spontaneity of riding the C&O.

There is no doubt in my mind that increased user fees will go to a lot of things other than improving the trail and the campsites. The NPS' statements even support that, talking about rehabbing structures, etc. The C&O canal park is, at it's heart, a sort of rail-trail, albeit a poorly maintained one. It's pretty rare to have user fees associated with rail trails IMO. If I was convinced that the user fees would go to significantly upgrading the trail surface to equate with that of the GAP, then I might be more accepting of the fees.

Local communities along the trail should definitely speak up about this, as it will directly impact their tourism dollars. Will I still ride the C&O, even with user fees? For a thru-ride, sure. It's worth it, and $20-40 or so for a multi-day ride isn't going to keep me away or "remove it from my bucket list." But it's disappointing, to be sure.

Ciufalon

Done. Submitted comment. Hopefully they will rethink this ill conceived idea.

irwin7638

I sent their website a comment. To paraphrase, I told them they should disclose the current cost on the trail, as well as any anticipated increases expected for enforcement and improvements to justify the increase on a dollar for dollar basis. Anything less is abusive and fraudulent use of public resources.

Marc

MassiveD

They don't claim to be collecting it due to the cost of providing services, they claim to need the revenue due to cuts. Cuts aren't specific neither is the revenue. This kind of thing always has the additional function of spreading the pain as widely as possible so as to gain as much blowback on the cuts in general. So they don't want to leave any sector untouched. A win win would be to tick off as many people as possible, while reducing use and cost as much as possible.

djb

I have only read of this trail here on this forum, honestly I cannot even tell you which state it is in, or where geographically it is in the U.S, not from disinterest, more from it being "far away" and not likely a place I would go to simply because of the distances involved.

that said, this discussion made me think of the rail trail that I have ridden on a few times near Montreal, called Le Petit Train du Nord. A train line that went north from Montreal up into the hilly area called The Laurentians, after the Laurentian mountains. Was a rail line that was used up until the 70s, maybe 80 ish, was abandoned due to the new large highway going up to the north, with cottage country and ski hills.
Was made into a trail in the early 90s and I recall cross country skiing on it a few times, but hadnt biked on it until a few years ago. Much more interesting to bike on than ski.

Last fall I decided to finally ride the whole thing, use the shuttle bus service to get me and my bike up to the top (town of Mount Laurier) and bike about 200km 125mi back to where I had left my car just north of Montreal where the shuttle starts from.

*Ok, now to the subject at hand! Apparently at some point they had tried doing a day fee to use the trail, but stopped doing this a number of years ago, probably due to the concerns brought up here--logistics of collecting a fee, reduced usage etc.
My take on it, especially when I biked on it a few septembers ago for some day rides (my first time on it) is that especially closer to Montreal, day use can be rather good (as it was the days I did day rides) and its completely logical that users will be like myself, wife and friend in that we bought a coffee and a muffin at trail side coffee shops set up in the old train stations.

When I did the whole thing as many tourists do, going up by shuttle, there will always be less volume compared to day rides, but then most people will use B+Bs along the way back towards Montreal, and there is a good info system of what services are available, list of B+Bs, hotels etc. My take on it is that dropping the day fee came from realizing that it is better for people to come use the thing, and therefore spend money in the various places when they are there.

Interestingly enough, when I got off the shuttle with the other 7 or 8 people (it was a cold and then unfortunately rainy weekend, so probably why not so many) there was an official from one of the towns there saying hello, I understood that he was involved in the rail trail also, and we spoke a bit about the costs involved in maintaining the trail. The upper part of the trail, for about 90-100km, is paved, most of it afterwards is crushed stone, and he told me that many of the municipalities up north that put out the money to pave it still havent gotten their money back--and unfortunately there are many sections that could do with repaving now but they cannot afford to do it.

I can attest that there are many sections that have had tree roots that have raised up hundreds of those frost heave things, but to the credit of the trail organisers, they have put orange spray painted circles around them as well as arrows warning you of upcoming bad sections. This was very much appreciated and I can see how it must be frustrating for them not to be able to afford repaving, and I wonder if it wouild be better to stick to crushed stone to avoid the frost heave issue.

bottom line it must come down to balancing out maintenance fees VS how much you figure people will spend while using the trail in the various municipalities VS promoting a good outdoor activity VS trying to promote tourism in general in smaller communities that dont get the skiers or whatever.

In my case of doing the whole trail in two days, I spend $70 on the shuttle, bought a coffee or two before I started, at the end of the day I bought groceries for supper and breakfast (I camped out on the trail, no one was around as it was cold) and the second day I stopped for hot drinks or whatever a few times, so probably spent $25 tops. I drove my car about an hour each way to get to where the shuttle leaves from, so spent gas on that, so all told, I put maybe $120 into the economy that weekend.

The $70 to the shuttle service is to a family run operation, they are hand in hand with B+Bs and hotels to attract people from out of province to do usually 3 or 4 day "vacations", they can organize your accomodations, carry your bags from B+B to B+B. They tend to promote about 50km per day and so make it attractive to folks who are not hard core bikers, but more to come and see the beauty of the area, especially in the fall with the leaves. It's great that there has been a good set of accommodations available to people, so you know where they are, where and what services are available in the small towns along the way, so you can plan out however you want to do this rail trail trip.

I am not privy to exactly how much money is brought into this region, and or how separate regions do compared to others (like I said, I am fairly confident that the places within "day ride" areas do a lot better with people driving their car to a parking lot,riding for a few hours or more, then driving back home), but it does seem to me that NOT having a day fee is the way to go, simply from encouraging people to come ride, and hopefully come back.

well that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

axolotl

djb, the C&O (Chesapeake & Ohio) Canal goes from Washington, DC, to Cumberland, Maryland, a distance of 184 miles/297 km. It is adjacent to the Potomac River. It was constructed in the 19th century and was an impressive engineering feat. However, by the time it was completed, railroads came into being so the canal was quickly obsolete.

I biked Le P'tit Train du Nord many years ago before any of it was paved, and loved it. I remember buying a pass somewhere. The pass system seemed crazy to me at the time, so I'm glad to hear that they got rid of it.

IMO, the overriding financial issue concerning the C&O Canal (which is part of the U.S. National Park Service), is insufficient funding by Congress. That situation is unlikely to improve anytime soon.

cyccommute 

I have to say that it's about bloody damned time! I've been all over the country and people east of the Mississippi have it nice. You don't pay entrance fees for any National Park or National Park Service facility. West of the Mississippi, we pay an entrance fee and a camping fee for every National Park and National Monument. We always have.

And the entrance fee for bicycles is hardly fair. We pay $10 per bike (for those counting that $3 to $7 more for bicycles out here than this proposal...cry me a dammed river) while a car full of as many people as you can cram in there pays $20.

That's a luxury site west of the Mississippi that we pay $20 a night for. The difference is that we get pit toilets instead of portapoties.

cyccommute 

Your information is old. From the Glacier National Park website

And those are luxury accommodations compared to Colorado's National Park camps. Compare the amenities of St. Mary's Lake Campground

to Moraine campground in Rocky Mountain National Park

And you have to bring you own shower bag.

axolotl

Your information is flat-out wrong. Fees are most certainly charged at many NPS sites east of the Mississippi. For example, there is already an entrance fee to the Great Falls, Maryland, area of the C&O Canal if you enter by road. Other national park facilities in the east, such as Shenandoah NP and Great Smoky Mountains NP have entrance fees, which I have personally paid on more than one occasion.