Walking the Walk
Bus Service in Grand Teton and Yellowstone is Long Overdue
By Michael Pearlman, 7-04-09
During my freshman year of college at USC in Los Angeles, I had a view of the famous Hollywood sign from my dorm room window. In addition to serving as a vivid reminder of the dominant industry of Southern California, the sign also served as a handy air quality indicator. Though located a mere eight miles away on Mount Lee in Griffith Park, the Hollywood sign was invisible on many days, sheathed in the blanket of smog that LA residents deal with on a daily basis.
I eventually left Los Angeles with its car culture and air quality issues for the Northern Rockies, where Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks beckoned me during the summer season. A visit to Jackson Hole during peak summer tourist season makes one instantly aware that the parks are capable of transforming into virtual cities, complete with traffic and other congestion-related issues.
Locals learn to develop strategies to try and avoid the worst of the crowds, but most of my friends and I avoid Yellowstone like the plague during July and August. Not because the trails are crowded, but simply because of the nightmare-inducing traffic congestion comprised of thousands of families motoring from parking lot to parking lot. Throw in a short construction season to address crumbling roads, and your August visit to Old Faithful will likely involve more hours in the car than among geysers. In Grand Teton National Park, attempting to visit popular spots like Jenny Lake or the Rockefeller Preserve in the middle of the day will leave you circling a parking lot like a shopper hitting the mall on Black Friday.
When I read an article in the Seattle Times recently about a new park service program called Climate Friendly Parks that intends to address climate change, my mind immediately went to the issue of reducing vehicle traffic and emissions in the parks. The National Park Service describes the program as:
“A collaboration of the National Park Service and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, provides national parks with management tools and resources to address climate change. The program aims to provide national parks with comprehensive support to address climate change both within park boundaries and the surrounding community.”
Sounds good to me. The program goes on to spell out how a park can earn Climate Friendly recognition by demonstrating measurable progress in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. Wouldn’t you know it, Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks aren’t among the member parks in the program yet.
Car culture is the double-edged sword of the National Park experience. Roads inside our parks make it easy for the elderly, the disabled and families with small children to get a taste of the grandeur and beauty of these places. But for the sake of air quality and the visitor experience, there should be another way to experience these two parks. Bus service is long overdue in both places and it’s time to look at places where private vehicles should be banned for part of the year, at least. It’s the only realistic way to get visitors out of their cars in Grand Teton and Yellowstone.
We already know that bus service can be effectively utilized within the park system. Zion National Park uses propane-powered buses to shuttle visitors from the nearby town of Springfield due to a severe parking shortage, helping to reduce resource damage. Yosemite National Park which receives hoards of weekend crowds from the nearby cities of northern California, also has a shuttle system within its boundaries. At Denali National Park, visitors can only drive 15 miles into the park and are required to take the bus the rest of the way along the 92-mile park road. These systems work well and have become the accepted mode of travel for visitors.
The public could also adapt to using public transportation in the Greater Yellowstone area during peak season, if it was offered. I’m not talking about traditional diesel-spewing school buses. I envision both parks embracing alternative fuel sources and green technology. Perhaps plug-in electric vehicles could be used, or the Park Service could work with emerging technology companies to showcase clean options.
In Grand Teton National Park, a summer season bus service could run from the town of Jackson to the Moose entrance station to the northern end of the park. The bus could stop at popular trailheads and tourists should be given an incentive for leaving their their cars at the campground or motel or even the visitor center. If Grand Teton’s inner park road from Moose to Jenny Lake were closed during peak season, I guarantee people staying in Jackson would be willing bus riders. At the very least, the narrow and scenic Jenny Lake Loop should be closed to private vehicle traffic.
In Yellowstone, buses could leave from West Yellowstone and make a loop following the interior roads of the park, allowing people staying in West Yellowstone motels, Old Faithful Inn and Yellowstone Lake Lodge to get out of their cars and take a bus to Old Faithful and the Upper Falls. In fact, I’d go further and completely ban private vehicles from Dunraven Pass, allowing only the bus service. You’d likely see a reduction in wildlife harassment within Yellowstone as well.
Bus service in both parks could be operated by an outside concessionaire, but ideally, the cost of the bus ride would be included in park entrance fee. Even if there’s a small charge to passengers, there should be a strong incentive to use the service that should include access to areas where private vehicles are not allowed.
Getting these two parks to embrace mass transportation is going to require changes in management policy and would require additional funding that the Park Service doesn’t appear to have right now. But if there’s one federal agency that should be the poster child for forward-thinking conservation and greenhouse gas reduction efforts it’s the National Park Service. In Glacier National Park, the effects of climate change are already visible in the rapid recession of glaciers. If the government isn’t willing to take aggressive action within the boundaries of the country’s most well-protected treasures, then what chance does air quality improvement have in places like Los Angeles, where the battle seems already to have been lost?
[End of article]having lived here in jackson for over 30 years and being an avid park user i would not be in favor any mandated public transit in gtnp or ynp. my wife and i visit our parks frequently and the traffic is never that bad. learning to deal with the annoyances that affect all of us is a skill we all need . but we dont need the govt to mandate bus service.
in the case of zion np the service works well because of the concentrated dead end canyon that is zion canyon. we enjoy riding the bus there but that system would not be necessary for gtnp and ynp. our 2 parks are broad and sparse with many miles between destinations. lets enjoy these parks the way they are now.
Oh well, there won't be any more cars in the Parks in a few years anyway, for the simple reason that there won't be any cars. Those Yugo-like vehicles that American Government Motors will be producing won't be any good for park touring because they'll keep breaking down, like those East German Trabants (I think that's how it's spelled). Besides, the Chinese will be running the Parks anyway.
Comment By Yellowstone Traveller, 7-04-09Not everyone is a tourist. As someone who lives in Wapiti, WY (between COdy and Yellowstone) and who needs to go to Jackson and Big Sky several times per year, going through the park (which I enjoy) is the quickest and most efficient mode of transportation. Closing the park to vehicular traffic would change my 3 hours ride to Jackson to about 7 or 8. Definitely not saving greenhouse gasses. But it does make sense for tourists.
Comment By eyewitness, 7-05-09Has anybody considered the massive asphalt parking lots that would sprawl out along the parks edges to park all the cars that arrive here annually so that they can ride a bus...I dont know about anywhere else, but there is no room in West Yellowstone to park the 20,000 cars that pass thru on a daily average.Wake-up people...This is a ploy by the enviro nuts to do away with all modes of transportation within all Natl Parks..They start by saying.."we are gonna help the enviromental impact by playing gods" and if they can lobby to get cars removed from the worlds most revered park, thats the edge they'll need to set the example and before to long our parks will be so "protected" that an aerial view will be the only ones allowed.
Comment By Jim Macdonald, 7-05-09One problem as I see it is that this proposal suggests rolling costs into user fees, which are fundamental problem in national parks - parks that are supposed to be public goods are instead now fiefdoms for the rich and us few locals who can get down there regularly.
Environmentalists often rightly get the "classist" designation when they offer solutions that don't take account of the evils of social class. Just as there has often been a hierarchy of humans over their environment that has been fallaciously supposed, people have just as often set up classes over themselves on the same logic. When environmental solutions take on only one part of this, the solutions leave a lot lacking and rightly open environmentalists up to the charge of being anti-poor.
Yellowstone has a parallel already in the snowcoach requirement for most interior roads in the winter; that requirement has made most of Yellowstone only accessible to the richest. Even most locals avoid taking the snowcoaches. So while access has been kept low in the winter, it hasn't done so in any way that's fair, only one that exacerbates the evils of economic class.
I don't care if there are no cars in Yellowstone; I do care that access policies don't exacerbate class issues. Showing a blindness to user fees, which are always wrong, ultimately shows an environmental blindness. Why we have so many problems in Yellowstone environmentally relates very much to the way we've also mistreated people. If you miss that, you will do no better than alleviate environmental symptoms without addressing a fundamental reasoning that perpetuates social injustice.
If you're dumb enough to tour popular National Parks during high season maybe I could interest you in "Vampire National Park Tours". We will drive you through the parks between 10p.m. and 5a.m. Cocktails with sterilized human blood will be served on board your tour bus.
Comment By Janet Chapple, author of "Yellowstone Treasures", 7-05-09I'm basically in agreement with Michael Pearlman's plan for reducing the cars in Yellowstone and the Tetons, but something more is needed to create a plan that is both more effective and more palatable to tourists.
First, cars should not be banned, since many people need to pass through (such as Yellowstone Traveller, who commented above) or cannot easily use public transportation because of disabilities or because they are traveling with small children.
Second, what is needed is a really efficient shuttle service between Old Faithful (or maybe West Thumb) and Norris Junction —or even all the way north to Mammoth Hot Springs. This should be free or very inexpensive and should run every twenty minutes in each direction in daylight hours, allowing people to get on and off at the thermal attractions all along the way.
As someone else pointed out, leaving cars in gateway communities would be a burden to those towns, but some of that may be necessary, perhaps in paid parking lots or garages, whose profits could go toward support of the shuttle system. Other cars could be left in the existing in-park parking lots for people staying inside the park.
The future is closer than you think - an innovative Regional Transit option is underway, and it won't cut into those that still choose (or must) drive.
A Regional Transportation Co-Op has received $535,000 funding from the Idaho Transportation Dept. via Stimulus ARRA funds. Led by the Yellowstone Business Council, with partners around the Greater Yellowstone, leaders will be gathering in West Yellowstone this week to map out the next steps.
Look at the YBP web site for more details - and get on board! http://yellowstonebusiness.org/
The reason Zion, Grand Canyon and Yosemite shuttles work so well is that they are dead-end, out/back shuttles. Yellowstone has 5 entrance/exit spots.
Janet: While I like the idea of offering buses through part of the park, the costs and logistics of running buses over even part of the roadway, as suggested above, are staggering. How many vehicles would it take to run every 20 minutes over 100+ miles (that would be the minimum distance, going only from Old Faithful to Mammoth Hot Springs and return), then there is the road construction... and the road closures that often are necessary to repair roads. And, this idea does nothing to minimize too much pavement around Old Faithful, since people would be parking there to ride the shuttle.
Rather than closing the road over Dunraven to all vehicles, I would prefer to see a strict limit on size of vehicles.
To Jim MacDonald: A comment on the cost of entering our National Parks: how much do people/families pay to enter Disneyland or other amusement parks? or to go to a movie? Our National Parks are gems, and the entrance fees are incredibly cheap in comparison to other amusements.I don't see it as a class issue, but rather one of lack of interest. A person must first be motivated to go somewhere, whether it be Disneyland or Yellowstone. A trip to Yellowstone can be much cheaper than a trip to amusement parks, but first people have to be aware of them, and interested in them.
Eyewitness: language like 'enviro nuts' solves nothing, it just polarizes people, hides the true issues, and makes the writer feel superior.
It is a conundrum, most certainly, walking the knife edge of 'preservation and protection'. We are fortunate in that we are allowed to voice our thoughts and opinions. The national parks are not 'us vs. them' as Eyewitness would have us believe. We are all in this together. Let's rise above pettiness and be creative in solving today's problems with America's best idea.
To Jim MacDonald: A comment on the cost of entering our National Parks: how much do people/families pay to enter Disneyland or other amusement parks? or to go to a movie? Our National Parks are gems, and the entrance fees are incredibly cheap in comparison to other amusements.I don't see it as a class issue, but rather one of lack of interest. A person must first be motivated to go somewhere, whether it be Disneyland or Yellowstone. A trip to Yellowstone can be much cheaper than a trip to amusement parks, but first people have to be aware of them, and interested in them.
I've written a fair amount on this subject in essays you can find on the Web. User fees by their nature for public services - is Disneyland a public good or service? - are unfair, whether they are for the subway, the bus, or for entry into national parks. There are a lot of reasons why they are unfair. In the case of national parks, they don't amount to as much as they might, because often the travel to the parks is so expensive. By the time you get to the gates for $25 for a week in Yellowstone and Grand Teton, you've had to spend on average an awful lot of money, money that those beneath the poverty line simply don't have, money that many people in the areas just above it don't have, especially when you factor in time away from work.
There are a large number of people this affects. The poor who can go to Yellowstone are generally college-aged or single, who can find jobs in the parks (that's how I first got there).
So, you add more fees for buses, and all you do is make it that much more inaccessible for an increasing number of people who live closer and closer to Yellowstone. Already, winter access for much of the park is unfair. How would monopolized bus contracts, or regulated and improved licensed bus contracts, make Yellowstone that much more accessible to people from different classes?
However, all of that misses the point, ultimately, When you look at problems in Yellowstone, why is there a constant crisis whether we mean the days of the Northern Pacific, the first automobiles into Yellowstone, or now? Isn't it because people feel a sense of entitlement to have Yellowstone serve their purposes? If you read the debate over the 1872 Act of Dedication, that's exactly what people were debating - that Yellowstone was best used to serve the public purpose of sightseeing, and that other human uses weren't around. So, people feel that they own Yellowstone and ultimately control it. And, that's why there's such a great debate through history over the best way to enjoy Yellowstone without destroying it. It starts from the premise that it belongs for the "enjoyment of the people."
There's a logical fallacy lurking there that I hope I don't have to spell out.
Yet, just as people have felt an entitlement to Yellowstone, they also at the same time have no compunction about rigging the system so that some people are more entitled to others, not simply by virtue of their proximity but also by virtue of how much they can afford. No one thinks anything of a system of economic unfairness; it's supposed that some people deserve what they have more than others and have all kinds of reasons for justifying it, however spurious they are. So, at the same time they assert a Yellowstone for all the people, they really mean some of the people ... and sometimes justify it by noting how its relatively worse in other places than it is in the national parks.
Yet, it's the same fallacy. Just as people have no right to harness Yellowstone for their own purposes, they have no right by their economic status to be the people who are entitled to Yellowstone. I said I have no problem with ridding Yellowstone of cars, in principle, because I don't think that Yellowstone owes us anything. We have no reason to think that Yellowstone is there for the enjoyment of anyone, although I'm personally not against enjoying it (what I'm against is building policy around our wrongful sense of entitlement). At the same time, if you get rid of cars in Yellowstone, you had better have something better to replace it with than the stagecoach days, where only the wealthiest could enjoy the full splendors of the park (besides, perhaps, those fortunate poorer single people who can afford to take a summer to work in the park). Like the snowcoach, the bus solution really amounts to the same thing ... unless you actually fund it fully through the American taxpayer at large. If this is truly a public good, then it should be treated as such, and not the sham that continues what Yellowstone governance is and always has been ... a union of monopolistic corporate influences in bed with the Department of Interior. You can read "The $elling of Yellowstone" for an interesting account of much of the history of this relationship.
Removing cars for buses in Yellowstone can be a good idea; as proposed, it merely removes a symptom of the ill. We have to face the larger context in which we've always mistreated Yellowstone and each other. Then, we'll get somewhere.
I don't think the intent of the article is to replace cars with buses. That would be impossible in Yellowstone for several reasons; not the least of which is touched on by Yell Trav above. The idea is to supplement cars with low pollution buses. Give people a choice. The only fair way to do that is to charge each rider. It is unfair for me to expect that my bus fare in Yellowstone should be paid for by a taxpayer in Florida who may never visit Yellowstone; in the same way that it would be unreasonable for me to expect that that taxpayer should pay for my gasoline to drive around Yellowstone. If you stop and think about it, the gateway communities are already giant parking lots, except just at night. Thousands of tourists park each night at their hotels and motels. Thousands more are parked at hotels in the park as well as at campgrounds. In other words, the parking is already there...just leave your car where it was parked already overnight and get on a bus, kangaroo style (hop on, hop off all you want for one fare) to tour the park.....or not, your choice. If you would rather spend twice as much in gasoline and fight the traffic....your choice! The key is to make the fare low enough (and fair enough....a fair fare as it were!), and attractive enough, to make people WANT to leave their cars parked. Gasoline is quickly eeking its way back toward three bucks a gallon. I have little doubt that it will soon be back up to four or more at some point. Five or ten bucks to ride around all day long might be pretty attractive, even to locals (heck, I'd ride the sucker in a heart beat!). The problem would be, as Jim points out, if they do as they have in the winter; where even a short trip into the interior can cost hundreds. That's ridiculous. That's economic unfairness. That's a park for the rich.
Regarding park fees: I certainly would not object to them being less, but I am opposed to doing away with them all together. I really think that stopping at an entrance station and paying a small fee to help support the park (probably less than you will pay for lunch or camping or one tank of gas) causes people to stop for a moment and reflect about entering a special place, not just more of the same old National Forest they have been driving though. It gives rangers a chance to speak with people. A chance to explain the differences between parks and forest. It probably reduces crime in the park (why pay $25.00 and have your license recorded to rob someone when you can rob someone outside of the park?).
Just my two cents worth.
Here is the issue. People ROAD TRIP to Yellowstone. They come in from the east, see Mt Rushmore and Devils Tower, pop up through Bozeman, down into Yellowstone, maybe catch a rodeo in Cody then head down to the Grand Canyon before B-lining back home. This is a stupid idea. Studies have shown that vacationers (locals excluded) most traffic comes in one exit and out another. People like to drive THROUGH the park.
Comment By the real mike, 7-07-09While it's true many people come from other regions in their vehicles, that doesn't mean that they wouldn't be willing to take a break from the driving once they get to a national park. It just means that there needs to be a place to park their vehicles at a gateway bus or train station before boarding to go into the park.
While it's also true that many people like to travel around the West when they get here, nobody is suggesting eliminating road travel across the West, just in the major and most crowded parks.
Mass transit works and on an extensive basis in most other industrialized countries; there's no reason why it wouldn't work in this case. There would be some complainers; but, what would be new about that? Somebody might really want to drive through the park and not around it; I want to be adopted by Bill Gates. Oh well, that's life.
Myth: Copying European transit will reduce driving and increase transit usage.
Reality: As Europeans become wealthier, they move out to the suburbs and behave just like Americans. Data from the European Union shows that between 1980 and 2000, E.U. passenger miles by air increased 132%, Private Auto increased 2.5%, Rail usage decreased 23%, Bus&Coach;usage dropped 27% and Tram&Metro;decreased 21.4%. This trend continues to the present even though Europeans are paying about 10 USD per gallon of gas.
So you want them to park their car up by the north entrance, take a guided tour just in the park, miss all that Cody, Jackson, West Yellowstone, and Idaho Falls have to offer because the buses operate inside the park then return to their car so they can drive AROUND the park via Idaho Falls then Salt Lake in order to drop down to see the Grand Canyon?
Why don't you just ask the state of Wyoming for several billion dollars in lost tourism money while you pitch this idea.
I know you are a washed up actor who is a transplant to Wyoming but do you have any idea how long it takes to drive around the park? As was mentioned in an earlier comment, just to get from Cody to Jackson you have to drive through Riverton and add five or so hours of drive time.
I love the idea of being able to use a shuttle within the park. My family likes to go stay at one of the cabins near the big lodges and tour from there. We'd gladly hop on a shuttle (or series of shuttles to get to the far away spots) to avoid some of the traffic jams.
Comment By the real mike, 7-08-09Gosh, Jared, you're wrong on all counts, me and the way a fully functioning transit system has to work. People from the arch/planning and engineering departments up at MSU have been looking at these ideas for years and they sure wouldn't be cutting Bozeman out of the picture ...or Livingston, West, or Gardiner or any other gateway chamber of commerce. A fully functioning system could go around the loop AND out to the gateway communities, compete with transfer stops if you want to leave your vehicle in one place and spend a day or two visiting another. Know what you speak of, both me (I take that back; leave me alone) and the way a transit system might work.
...And Garcia, you may have misinterpreted what your own statistics are saying. A 2.5% increase in private auto use over 20 years is statistically insignificant, flat. If you really knew anything about either statistics or the European lifestyle, you'd know those statistics would suggest most Europeans are traveling less in general. The increase in air travel is significant; but, that may just account for more international air travel through European ports, perhaps including more migrant labor going back and forth to their home countries. In fact, I'm not sure you quoted those numbers correctly.
Sorry, the stats show a clear transit share loss and automobile share gain in the E.U. despite heavily subsidized transit and heavily penalized auto travel. As a percentage of total passenger transport measured in passenger-Kilometers: Air increased from 2.5% to 5.8%; Passenger Car increased from 76.4% to 78.3%; Rail decreased from 8.2% to 6.3%; Bus&Coach;decreased from 11.6% to 8.5%; Tram&Metro;decreased from 1.4% to 1.1% in the 1980-2000 time period.
Comment By Jim M, 7-09-09First, you have a major error. The shuttle system in Zion only runs about 9.2 miles not 92.
Second, Mass transit has been study many times recently and none could find an effective solution. The park is too big and there are too many visitors that would want to go in different directions. There is a logistical problem of the number of buses needed and the number of stops.
Third, many trips are currently planned as through trips. Enter at North entrance and depart at South is just one example. Transit does not serve this.
Fourth, the original stagecoach system created a class system within the park. The park service would never run the transit system on its own. It would be private and it would likely be class based again with more comfortable buses being higher price.
Fifth, I also assume you would want to eliminate lodging and camping in the park by extension? Except, of course, backcountry camping. This has been a goal by some for years because the real park experience can not be done through road side facilities but only through the wilderness.
Sixth, Plug in vehicles are a problem in Yellowstone at this time. It would require either the elimination of visitor facilities or a major upgrade to the electrical infrastructure in the park. Having spent a summer working in the park, I can tell you that the electrical grid is fragile and subject to failures. The terrain and distance to drive around Yellowstone would tax most plug in only vehicles capacity at this time.
Seventh, It would reduce visitation by a large percent. Some may see this as a good thing. However, that is also a major loss of revenue for the park. If less people visit the park, it may become seen as less important to people in the future. We are already having to deal with a new generation that does not see parks as important as they were seen in the past. The more you restrict the visitation, the more some of these future leaders will grow up caring less about the parks and that will place their preservation in danger. As much as loving the parks to death is a problem, there is a much larger danger if the parks are seen as no big deal. Do you know how many green energy folks drool at the idea of tapping into the geothermal potential of the GYA? The less the parks are seen as important, the less people will fight for them. Be careful of what you want, it may be more dangerous than you can imagine.
Yes, well, I'm sorry too. I'm sure you mean well and I might even be inclined to agree with your ultimate point; but, your "stats" don't indicate what you think they do and this second presentation of them makes the problem even worse. In any real situation, "stats" like these will vary up and down through time with the varying effects of any number of outside variables. You need to look at the data through time and establish the norms, the standard deviations, to determine what is a significant variation and what is not. If your reporting is correct, I believe the change in air travel is probably "real" and statistically significant; but, the others are not clear from the standpoint of a statistically scientific standpoint. These data are just too close to draw a reliable conclusion, although I'm sure you think you see one. The supposed increase in "passenger car" travel, as shown in your second presentation of the data, is particularly suspect. You really need to visit any good four-year college or university, find a competent business or social science mathematician (they're the experts in the science of statistics), show them your data, and get them to explain the concepts to you. You've heard the old cliche, "figures lie and liars figure" and this is just the kind of thing that old saying is about. Again, sorry to break it to you.
Comment By Jim M, 7-09-09My apologies on the error. I missed the switch to Denali on the 92 miles. However there is a major difference in visitation levels. Plus, 99% of visitors can't drive to Denali anyways.
Comment By Jim M, 7-09-09I will concede that the inner loop of Grand Teton could be viable. But, it would require the construction of some very large parking lots in the north part of the park. A lot of visitors day trip from Yellowstone.
Comment By the real mike, 7-09-09I just saw the Jim M posting and, frankly, it's just full of wild speculation and extrapolation about what a transit system might be like. I don't know where the remark about Zion came from; but, although mass transit in Yellowstone has been studied and is being studied, there is no basis for saying that no effective solution can be found. No effective solution has yet been funded and thus implemented; but, that certainly is not the same as no effective solution existing.
Then, you allege that transit does not serve through trips. That kind of sweeping statement indicates some pretty sloppy thinking. What kind of transit does not serve through trips? "Transit" all over the world serves "through trips" and serves them well. I go from coast-to-coast on a regular basis and "transit" certainly serves those "through trips" well, for me and millions of others.
Your contention that "the original stagecoach system created a class system" is equally ridiculous. When the original stagecoach system was in place, it was the age of the robber barons; there was a class system everywhere. There was a class system in every city and hamlet in America and it had nothing to do with the Yellowstone stagecoaches. Dicken's London was not the product of the Yellowstone stagecoaches. Do you have no critical thinking capabilities at all?
You "assume" that a transit system would "eliminate lodging and camping in the park by extension?" Come on, you can't be serious in thinking you can rationally link a fleet of buses to the elimination of park lodging.
Your summer working in the park didn't help your understanding of transportation science. "Plug in" vehicles, if and when battery capability made them fully feasible, would not need to depend on the existing electrical grid. In fact, some form of modular point source generation might easily be a better and less intrusive choice.
Finally, you proclaim, as if you had any capability to do so, that a transit system "would reduce visitation by a large percent." Forgive me; but, that's a load of unsubstantiated crap. There is absolutely nothing inherent to a transit system that would necessarily "reduce visitation" by any amount. In fact, in cases of well designed transit systems, usage usually is boosted.
Look, I'm sorry; but, i do have expertise in this area and your willingness to open up and spew false information that can color a debate and do so much damage is just unethical. If you don't have any knowledge of a topic, why distort the picture, create disinformation, pass on misinformation, by voicing a fake "I spent a summer stocking souvenirs and I know" opinion?
You're a pompous idiot. You have no idea how many degrees I have and how many years I lived in Europe. The stats show just what anyone with common sense can see. That the overwhelming majority of total trips are made by auto and despite heavily subsidizing public transit, it is on the decline over time in E.U. countries. Despite the myth that the European transit is a good model for the U.S. to follow. Europeans are just as "auto-centric" as the U.S. and only have a little less wealth.
Comment By Jim Macdonald, 7-09-09I do want to write one (long) thing in regards to the conversation that Jim M. (nice initials ... but it ain't me) and the real mike are having about class.
It is certainly true that the stagecoach did not create the class society; it existed long before robber barons and Jay Cooke. It is just as certainly true that class problems exist now as much as ever. And, so a transit system in Yellowstone is not going to cause what already exists. However, neither should it ignore the problem nor pretend that it's a completely separate issue.
What I stated in two posts was that the solution as written deals with the problem of cars and emissions in Yellowstone but suggests doing so in a way that only exacerbates the other injustice when in fact both injustices are actually related and arise from the same logic of domination fallacy. I don't think we can deny that the history of Yellowstone from its founding all the way until now has exhibited management that maintains both injustices.
If we are serious for caring about Yellowstone, then we have to acknowledge both and not simply chalk class issues to a general problem of society at large. Those "at large" issues have to be combated in the situations we live and breathe (just as the environmental "at large" issues can be combated in Yellowstone where some of us live and breathe).
I think a good way to move the discussion forward would be to talk about how a car-less system in Yellowstone would be managed (assuming you could rid yourself of the logistic nightmare that a lot of others here are raising, and pretend that places like Cooke City don't exist, etc. and all the exceptions to the rule could be figured out). How would you divorce it from user fees? How would you keep it out of the hands of for-profit corporations? How would you at least make Yellowstone that much more accessible to people for whom its not as accessible (we talk about class, but studies show a growing race gap in national parks irrespective of class, there may be an age gap, an education gap, and these may also be related to systemic problems in society at large). It need not solve the ultimate social ill but should be sensitive to them and take steps in the right direction. If saving the earth comes at the expense of every other injustice, you're just plugging up gopher hills. Martin Luther King Jr. rightly said an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
If not in user fees, then in what? If Yellowstone really is that valuable to all American people, it seems a good solution should be taxed (and progressively taxed at that)? I think that opens up another can of worms - perhaps, the rub is that Yellowstone really doesn't belong to all the people ... it doesn't belong to anyone ... and perhaps, the changes we need to call for in regards to Yellowstone are far more fundamental than a bus system. If that is the conclusion, we shouldn't run from it. Yet, in the interim, it could be productive to talk about how to make a transit system that is fairer. The filth of our emissions comes from more than our carbon footprint; it comes also from our unwillingness to treat each other better. And, while cars in Yellowstone, or buses, or stagecoaches, or snowcoaches did not cause these problems, our solutions can take a step toward reversing them. If we really think we can take on something as big as global climate change, there's no reason to cut our ambitions short now!
Jim Macdonald, you make some good points.
I share your concern over the growing class, racial, educational, and even subtle generational divides when it comes to participation not only in visiting the national parks and understanding and supporting the national park ideal, but also participation in all those things that represent and form the cultural core of our American civilization, from serious arts and music to architectural and scenic landmarks and, most important, an understanding of what they mean and where they fit. A "transit system" can either reinforce and nurture these divides or undermine and erode them, depending on how it is designed, operated, managed, costed, etc. The very existence of a "transit system," without any other information, is not going to conclusively drive class divisions. In fact, when it comes to economic class, I would contend that the need to have, own, rent, borrow, or steal a car in order to visit Yellowstone is about as "class-division-nurturing" as it can get ...and the same logic pretty much applies when you replace "car" with "snowmobile" in this argument.
There have been a lot of bones thrown into the weeds in this string of postings. Where would you park cars? ...in parking structures that could be quite large and quite a distance away from the park itself. What about remote gateway communities like Cody or Cooke City? ...a leg of the "transit system" could go there. Wouldn't that cost a lot of money? ...maybe eventually yes; it takes a lot to live up to being the greatest nation on Earth; but, the system would grow and evolve slowly, with a small prototype system at first and then perhaps replaced with larger and more extensive systems as support, money, and the right kinds of technology become available. Would use of the system be mandatory? ...maybe under some circumstances and to reach certain points, again, the system would have to evolve as support, money, and the right kinds of technology become available.
How would you divorce it from user fees? Forgive me; but, this may not be the question; the question may be one of how we keep user fees fair and affordable. Personally, I wish there were a way to avoid user fees wherever possible; handling money costs money and complicates the operations and it would be better to have a single entrance pass that covers as much as possible of the basics in the park; but, you know as well as everyone else that the nation has been subjected to a thirty year right-wing infomercial. The mantra is now that everybody, at least all the little people, is supposed to pay their own way; no noblesse oblige, nothing noble about much of anything anymore; and selfishness has become a religion that now even the poor preach. However, there are lots of ways to wrap the transportation fees into the overall park fees, use family discounts, and other wise soften the hit. ...and, again, no foreseeable user fee would be as "class-division-nurturing" as the need to have, own, rent, borrow, or steal a car in order to visit the park.
How would you keep it out of the hands of for-profit corporations? This is another imprecise question. Lots of public services are provided on a cost-plus-award-fee or cost-plus-incentive-fee basis by for-profit corporations and I don't believe that you would be able to find a problem. The question you might have meant to ask is how to keep them from being "monopolistic franchises" where the successful bidder is free to pump the prices according to what the market will bear. Preventing this kind of corruption could be either easy or difficult. Park concessions contracts are like public utility contracts; the mechanisms to regulate them are there and "can" be used to make them perform in the interests of the public. How well they truly are regulated again depends on the relative tightness of the grip of that aforementioned thirty year right-wing infomercial; but, in any case, it is 1) not a question that a "transit system" can answer and 2) again, will the probable outcome be as "class-division-nurturing" as the need to have, own, rent, borrow, or steal a car in order to visit the park?
How would you at least make Yellowstone that much more accessible to people for whom its not as accessible? The real answer will not come in Yellowstone, "transit system" or not. The real answer is to make people WANT to access Yellowstone. That starts with more teachers, teacher pay that encourages better teachers, reduced class sizes, and a focus not just on the job skills that "the big boys" need in their workforces, but also on the cultural core of our American civilization, including the national parks and understanding and supporting the national park ideal. Yes, yes, the little people need the job skills to be able to satisfy "the big boys" and thus earn enough to even think about those high-minded things; but, without those high-minded things, the inspiration and ambition won't be there, which is exactly why the thirty year right-wing infomercial has focused on making schools leaner and more efficient, schools that save money, turn out workers, and don't bother with... Reread Orwell.
So, we've come full circle. It's not and will not be the fault of a "transit system" and, if you want to fight for a just and better world, you're going to have to fight a lot of the very people you want to help because the thirty year right-wing infomercial has even got the poorest and most downtrodden among them drinking the kool-aid. In the meantime, a reasonable "transit system" can be designed and there's a reasonably high probability that one would be designed that would not be as "class-division-nurturing" as the need to have, own, rent, borrow, or steal a car in order to visit the park.
Sorry for the delay. I have had a lot of things to work on.
First thing I want to ask, who do all of the people who you want to service who don't have a car get to Yellowstone? Unless they are living near the park, which is not a huge percentage of visitors, they would need some kind of vehicle to get them to the transit points. If they can't afford a car, it is difficult to see them being able to afford the transit options to arrive anyways.
Now, my class argument has to go with what would be the options of the tours within the park. There was a historical difference in the stage coach carriage. Granted it was between upper class and middle class, low class had no options. Your upper class had access to less crowded coaches and stayed at the higher class lodgings. Historically, before the car was allowed access to the park, you would not have seen the middle class at Old Faithful Inn. The middle class would have been staying in places like the Wiley Camps. They were served by a different transportation company and were always more crowded. Hence my comment on the class differences in service. A transit system, in order to be profitable, would likely have to re-create a class division with tiers of service. You can even look at the winter system that is currently class limiting to upper and upper middle classes based on the cost required to enter any part of the park south of Mammoth. The car was the democratizing and equalizing force within the park by opening the park experience up to many more people who would have ever been able to visit before.
As far as an effective solution, I should have included a caveat. An effective solution is one that would not drain NPS resources, could meet both environmental needs and the needs of park visitors without a detrimental impact to either. Yes, there have been many ideas and plans put forward on transit in the park. The vast majority fail in financial feasibility or expected guest acceptance. You poo-poo my comment on parking facilities in the gateway towns. You say we could just add a transit leg to the gateway cities. From where? You say Cody. What is the transit time to get from Cody to Canyon? Plan on two hours drive time. More with transit stops. Add parking and making arrangements to get on transit plus wait time, that could be about three hours. Now after this, what are the visitors options? They either have to have a place to stay in the park and then figure out the transit to get to that location, along with dealing with intermediate stops, or they can take a bus to West Yellowstone or Gardiner or go back to Cody. The visitors spend more time on the bus and trying to figure out the bus system than they would if they just had their vehicle. Even if they chose to go to West Yellowstone, they would still have to schedule a trip all the way back to their vehicle in Cody. What hours will these buses run? I doubt 24/7. (I can't tell you how many people showed up at the front desk looking for rooms at 11:00PM) The trip would have to be regimented and scheduled to every detail. No time for the wonderment of seeing something and deciding to do an unplanned activity. A transit system requires an orderly movement of point A to point B with a stop at point C in the middle. Don't even think of the hassle of the constant loading and unloading of luggage assuming all vehicles are kept out.
My idea on through transit was someone who was traveling, with vehicle going north to south, east to west and vice versa. Livingston, Mt to Jackson, Wy is not a feasible trip if you want to spend a night in the park unless you could add another full day transit time plus if there is no through traffic.
I am not saying that a bus system can never work. I think a shuttle bus service between developments would be a wonderful idea. However, if you eliminate autos from the park, you will see a reduction in visitation because, since the U.S. tends to have a lot less vacation time than many European countries, time is everything. The problem with a bus system would be the frequency and comfort level required to meet peoples time and comfort expectations.
I think transit is an option. I just think it has to be a supplement to reduce vehicle traffic. There are too many obstacles to come up with a viable plan that would eliminate vehicles in the park. The people will not allow it.
One last point on the plug in vehicle idea. If you are not going to build out the electrical infrastructure in the park, how do you intend to make it work. Solar does not seem as if it would be a viable option due to the number and visible placement of panels that would be needed. Wind is not an option because it would be destructive to the viewscapes. Geothermal? I don't think so. No way in the park. No dams for hydro in the park either. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of plug-in vehicles. However, the parks terrain is not the best for this nor is there a good option to get the power to the plugs that I can see.