| Author |
Topic |
 Grouse Grinding, GPS carrying, lawn chair packing, bike riding North Shore tech addict who stares at Crown Mountain from his office window all day
North Vancouver
Canada
1907 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2004 : 8:11 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by sgRant
The road to the original Singing Pass trailhead should be repaired, included in the fee area, and taken back from Intrawest.
Hear, Hear! Well said! |
|
|
Victoria, BC
Canada
100 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2004 : 9:04 PM
|
I'm considering opening a book on how long it takes for Jim to come out of the shadows (as it were) to kill this thread.
But while it's still open, I'll say my piece.
Five bucks for the day isn't much more than a froo-froo caffienated beverage at a certain much-maligned coffee-slinging multinational. Fifty bucks for the year, considering what you get in return, is a steal. As I've said in other threads, society has decided where it wants government to spend money. Health care is first, and everything else is last. Whether or not this is the right approach is a different subject entirely; this is the way at is, and with the boomers getting to point where they're increasingly worried about what happens to them when they get old we might as well all get used to it.
quote:
My understanding, perhaps outdated, is that the provincial government covers most of the cost of maintaining the Cypress Bowl Road.
Outdated it is. Here's the link.
http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/bchighways/contracts/maintenance/Standards_Specs_Local_Area/sa04/SA04LAS7inventory.pdf
quote:
I'm no longer a fan of 'Parks', provincial or national. They have become overmanaged and magnates. In theory the idea of a park is good but the practical aspect is failing. I prefer unmanged natural reserves where there is a restriction on the building of roads, development, forestry, ...public land without park status. No formal parking lots, interpretive centers, trails campgrounds and the like. The 'parks' seem more a function of a tourist industry than preservation.
If there's a chunk of land you want to see protected, you want it to be a park. Not a wildlife preserve, not a recreation area, not a nature reserve, but a park. The reason for this is obvious; if a future government wants to get its meat hooks on Super-Valuable Mineral X which happens to be buried under said area, it's toughest for them to do so if it's a park. If ANWR were a park, Dubya wouldn't have even bothered suggesting drilling in it. If the price of that is a few campgrounds and an interpretive centre (where kids learn why it's important that the chunk of land remain a park) then so be it. If you don't like it, don't go there.
----------------------------------------
'I've said it before, and I'll say it again: democracy just doesn't work.' - Kent Brockman |
Edited by - pheenster on 10/06/2004 9:19 PM |
|
|
Vancouver
1827 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2004 : 10:23 PM
|
pheenster,
I tried the link you provided, and found no information disproving my claim about the provincial government funding snow removal from the Cypress Bowl Road. Yes, it says the private operator operates the equipment. That says nothing about who pays.
Although you have repeated points made earlier in this topic, you have not addressed my main point, which is that fee structures should be designed to encourage less-polluting and more health-enhancing activities. The present parking fee for parks does the opposite and down the road will result in far higher costs due to pollution and an unhealthy population that will dwarf the meager funds collected by the fees.
----------------------------------------
Time spent in the mountains is not deducted. |
|
|
Abbotsford, BC
Canada
439 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2004 : 05:44 AM
|
Some good points have been made so far.
I gladly pay the fees to use the cabins or the car campsites. I don’t even mind paying a small fee to use the backcountry campsites.
I think the day use fees in particular are unfair and poorly implemented. Provincial Parks are there for everyone to enjoy. Cutting back the parks budget, maintaining income taxation levels, and then tacking an additional cost on to users is an insult to taxpayers. The government in doing so has failed in its responsibilities to maintain its parks.
The vast majority of dayhikers have almost no impact on the trails and areas they use. It is in the government’s and general taxpayer’s best interest to supply a little bit of litter removal, parking, trail maintenance and fancy trail junction signs, and toilet paper if it means tourists will come.
The trails outside of provincial parks, even the busy ones, do just fine without the public budget or the fees, thanks to volunteer groups and individuals and the BC Forest Service. Why then do we put up with the day use fees? Because although they are unfair, the fees are affordable and we are generally too passive to put up a big fuss. The government has taken advantage of this.
Some examples that I find offensive:
- when I park at Murrin and leave the park immediately to hike to Petgill Lake, I am faced with the fee
- there is a fee to use Murrin Park at all - it is tiny, right beside the highway, and involves very little maintenance. There are numerous roadside provincial parks that do not collect a fee.
- there is a fee to use the Rubble Creek TH but not the Cheakamus Lake TH - both access the same trail system
- Seymour and Cypress collect the fees during the summer but not the winter (others do not collect in the winter as well, am I right?)
- I must pay the overnight rate if I park at Rubble Creek and camp at Gentian Pass, for example, or any other undeveloped and unmaintained spot within the park
- there was not even a trash can at the Rubble Creek TH when I was there a couple of months ago
|
Edited by - Shakey on 10/07/2004 06:50 AM |
|
|
Victoria, BC
Canada
100 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2004 : 1:39 PM
|
quote:
I tried the link you provided, and found no information disproving my claim about the provincial government funding snow removal from the Cypress Bowl Road. Yes, it says the private operator operates the equipment. That says nothing about who pays.
I agree that the statement is open to interpretation. I've sent a couple of e-mails and I'll let you know what I get back.
UPDATE: You're right, and I'm wrong. The road is maintained by the ski area under separate contract with Transportation and Highways. My bad, and I apologize. Chris
quote:
Although you have repeated points made earlier in this topic, you have not addressed my main point, which is that fee structures should be designed to encourage less-polluting and more health-enhancing activities. The present parking fee for parks does the opposite and down the road will result in far higher costs due to pollution and an unhealthy population that will dwarf the meager funds collected by the fees.
What I think you're saying here is that people should be encouraged to stop polluting and start exercising. I agree with that in theory anyway, but the root of that problem is lazy people driving lots and excercising never, not parking fees. Pay parking (as ChuckU stated above) is a user fee, not social engineering; the fee offsets the cost of that facility to the government, so they can use that money somewhere else.
If you want to encourage people to drive less and get healthy, you need to increase taxes on gas and junk food, and how many people do you think are going to vote for that? I don't really agree with social engineering anyway, because historically I don't think it works. Smoking rates in this country have dropped dramatically among the upper and middle classes, and nowhere near as much among lower-income people. If high taxes were the main factor causing people to quit smoking, you would think that the people who can least afford the cost of a pack of smokes (which is almost enough to park two cars for the day at Shannon Falls) would be the first to quit. That hasn't happened, and that's because of education. People quit smoking because it can kill you, not because the government tried to tax you into it. For me, the money I saved from quitting smoking is a pleasant side-effect of living a healthier lifestyle. I look at high tobacco taxes as a down-payment on what these people are going to cost the health-care system down the road, not as an incentive to quit.
What it comes down to in most cases is education; if you educate people, over time it has an effect, and I believe that the same is true WRT other health and environmental issues.
I'll stop now I've dragged this completely off topic!
Chris
----------------------------------------
'I've said it before, and I'll say it again: democracy just doesn't work.' - Kent Brockman |
Edited by - pheenster on 10/07/2004 5:00 PM |
|
|
Bowen Island, BC
Canada
614 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2004 : 2:30 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shakey
[list]when I park at Murrin and leave the park immediately to hike to Petgill Lake, I am faced with the fee
This is not meant to argue, but provide an anecdote. When we did the Petgill Lake - Goat Ridge hike on the August holiday weekend, we put the van in the Murrin Lake lot. We parked by the entrance at the north end of the lot. My buddy said that he'd go and pay. I guess I was feeling a little grumpy about paying and asked, "Pay what?" He said this was a Park and over by the lake was the machine. I said, "I don't see it from here." I looked around and said, "I don't see any signs saying that we have to pay." It was my vehicle, so he figured the consequences would be my problem. We did the hike. We were gone 13 hours. No fine and no notice. So, I think that if you are not using the lake and the Park, and locate your vehicle at the north end of the lot, you may be able to hike to Petgill Lake without having to pay.   |
|
|
Vancouver, BC
Canada
388 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2004 : 2:40 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by howesound
quote:
Originally posted by Shakey
[list]when I park at Murrin and leave the park immediately to hike to Petgill Lake, I am faced with the fee
This is not meant to argue, but provide an anecdote. When we did the Petgill Lake - Goat Ridge hike on the August holiday weekend, we put the van in the Murrin Lake lot. We parked by the entrance at the north end of the lot. My buddy said that he'd go and pay. I guess I was feeling a little grumpy about paying and asked, "Pay what?" He said this was a Park and over by the lake was the machine. I said, "I don't see it from here." I looked around and said, "I don't see any signs saying that we have to pay." It was my vehicle, so he figured the consequences would be my problem. We did the hike. We were gone 13 hours. No fine and no notice. So, I think that if you are not using the lake and the Park, and locate your vehicle at the north end of the lot, you may be able to hike to Petgill Lake without having to pay.
You may have gotten lucky. We were there also in August, and also parked at the north end of the empty parking lot (it was raining). I did walk to the machine, but it was out of order.
But I also remember an anecdote: somebody parked in Yaletown a few years ago, and got a ticket. He disputed it by claiming that the 'no parking' sign was not clearly visible from where he parked. The ticket was dismissed, but he got a photo later showing the new sign location, now perfectly visible ;)
Eugene |
|
|
|
Grouse Grinding, GPS carrying, lawn chair packing, bike riding North Shore tech addict who stares at Crown Mountain from his office window all day
North Vancouver
Canada
1907 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2004 : 5:52 PM
|
I parked at the north end of Murrin Lake lot in June and got a ticket. I didn't even realize it was a pay lot at the time, since there were no signs. When I got back to the car and found the ticket and was furious, I was ready to head over to the parking attendent's truck and give him a word or two, but common sense prevailed.
Never did pay the ticket, I think it must have been a warning or something, so I guess you get one get-out-of-jail-free card.
|
|
|
Vancouver
1827 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2004 : 7:09 PM
|
Chris,
Just a "debating" point that if the fees collected allow the government to spend money somewhere useful, perhaps at the same time I no longer have that money in my pocket to spend usefully!
Here's what I found:
Hansard 1986,
http://www.legis.gov.bc.ca/Hansard/33rd4th/33p_04s_860515a.htm
states the subsidy is $80,000 per year for snow removal on the Cypress Bowl Road, not $50,000 as I mistakenly claimed. The Hansard discussion also refers to the protest that led to the establishment of the public access route to Hollyburn Peak, following the privatizaiton of the area.
And from Hansard 1988: http://www.legis.gov.bc.ca/hansard/34th2nd/34p_02s_880526p.htm
[CBRL-sg] "leased the commercially useful part of the park for $500, 000 [per 10 years - sg] on a 50-year lease.... the operator then returned to public use a small toboggan area, and for that the provincial government took on the responsibility of clearing two parking lots. It didn't really decide to do the clearing itself, but it would pay the operator to do the clearing of two parking lots in exchange for the fact that this toboggan run had become again open to the use of the public.
What I'm also told is that there is an exorbitant amount of money that the provincial government allows that operator for clearing the lots. There is also the question of whether they do or not, but I would like the minister to respond. The amount, I am told, is $157, 000 a year; it's tied to inflation and it could go up. That's a considerable amount more than the private operator is even paying the province to have the whole part of the park that he operates with the cross-country ski runs and everything like that.
My question to the minister is: is this another of the possible ways that privatization is going to operate, with the operator paying $500, 000 over ten years and then getting $157, 000, more or less, per year to clear two parking lots?"
The Cypress Bowl Recreations lease seems to be modified frequently. For instance, the tobogganing area now appears to be part of the leased area. Probably Friends of Cypress Park would have information on the terms of the lease at their fingertips. It will be interesting to see what information you obtain.
I have to disagree with you that shaping behaviour through cost structures is futile. I think it's been clearly shown that taxes on cigarettes change consumption. Would consumption be affected if they cost $1000 per pack, or were free? I think it's also the belief of front-line parks staff that the parking fees have reduced user visits in the parks affected. Despite the relatively small fees being largely a matter of principle, they seem to be driving some people away.
(If you add these parking fees to fees for using forestry campsites, various national park fees and passes, fees to use the WCT, Bowron Lakes etc, then it all adds up to more than a trivial amount. There are far less fees and far less benefits associated with just driving a motorhome all over the place.)
Where we agree fully is that the fees should be levied on things like gas taxes. With fees on the gas, those who drive bloated tanks around all day would pay for their habit, while those who park and go hiking would save by not burning the taxed gas while not driving. I also agree that without better educated citizens, many people would go bananas over any such proposal.
This is a valuable exploration of the fee issue. Anyone who doesn't like it is free not to read it, although that would work against becoming educated.
----------------------------------------
Time spent in the mountains is not deducted. |
Edited by - sgRant on 10/07/2004 7:12 PM |
|
|
Victoria, BC
Canada
100 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2004 : 10:43 PM
|
sg,
I got a note back from Cypress Bowl stating that they have had a separate contact for road clearance with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways since 1984. As I said in my other post, my bad.
quote:
I have to disagree with you that shaping behaviour through cost structures is futile. I think it's been clearly shown that taxes on cigarettes change consumption. Would consumption be affected if they cost $1000 per pack, or were free?
I don't think they're completely futile; I'm sure they do have some effect on people's behaviour. Using myself as an example, though, I can afford to smoke if I wanted to, but I wouldn't even if they were free. I still believe education is the most important element in changing behaviour.
quote:
(If you add these parking fees to fees for using forestry campsites, various national park fees and passes, fees to use the WCT, Bowron Lakes etc, then it all adds up to more than a trivial amount. There are far less fees and far less benefits associated with just driving a motorhome all over the place.)
I don't know about that. Let's say you (driving I'm guessing a small, fuel-effecient vehicle) and Joe Motorhomer left Vancouver for the Island at the same time, you to hike the WCT and Joe to set up camp at Bamfield. Moneywise you've taken the ferry, bought food, paid your trail fee, and driven to Bamfield and back for less than it cost Joe to fill his tank and get his motorhome onto the ferry!
Chris
----------------------------------------
'I've said it before, and I'll say it again: democracy just doesn't work.' - Kent Brockman |
|
|
Vancouver
1827 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2004 : 11:42 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by pheenster
I don't know about that. Let's say you (driving I'm guessing a small, fuel-effecient vehicle) and Joe Motorhomer left Vancouver for the Island at the same time, you to hike the WCT and Joe to set up camp at Bamfield. Moneywise you've taken the ferry, bought food, paid your trail fee, and driven to Bamfield and back for less than it cost Joe to fill his tank and get his motorhome onto the ferry!
The disparity should be even greater, and besides the seemingly innocent inclusion of ferry rates, you could skew the comparison even more by including the cost of our vehicles. Who spent more is largely irrelevant. Maybe to celebrate a successful hike I bought a Rolex at the coop in Port Renfrew.
However, to focus on what really matters in the comparison... The motorhome driver isn't paying as much for gas as gas should cost, (s)he's paying nothing for the vastly greater pollution they created, their ferry ride is subsidized (see below), and they're paying the same health care premiums even though they sat on their duffs and drank beer all week.
(Motorhomes are subsidized on BC Ferries because they don't pay their share of the cost to build boats with enough space and tonnage to carry their vehicles. In fact, in that analysis, cyclists especially are subsidizing the motorhomes. Smart planning.)
The problem is that despite polluting less, paying more of my share of the cost to provide the ferry, and being less of a burden on the health care system while funding it the same as everyone else, I've had to pay an extra $100 or whatever the WCT fee is, to the various levels of government. So I'm subsidizing the motorhomer. Wouldn't we all be better off if it were the other way around?
----------------------------------------
Time spent in the mountains is not deducted. |
Edited by - sgRant on 10/07/2004 11:45 PM |
|
|
 Night owl posting,Subie driving, backpacking Dad who is perpetually trying to catch up to his kids on the trail.
Vancouver, BC
Canada
3064 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2004 : 01:40 AM
|
Back to the basic issue: you can't claim to be subsidizing anyone of you're not paying more for a service than it costs to provide the service. Regardless of how you got there, if you are using the WCT and what users pay is less than the cost of maintenance and associated SAR costs, your payment is not a subsidy to anyone. As with other examples, you can be sure that trail fees at most offset a portion of trail costs. The better point for debate is this: assuming health and other benefits associated with hiking, shouldn't there be a greater subsidy for outdoor activities?
----------------------------------------
"Aging ... it beats the alternative" |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Provincial park Fees
