[HN Gopher] The scourge of Rec dot gov (2021) ___________________________________________________________________ The scourge of Rec dot gov (2021) Author : goplayoutside Score : 96 points Date : 2022-05-13 15:01 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (pmags.com) (TXT) w3m dump (pmags.com) | notRobot wrote: | I have a question. I keep hearing about so many problems with the | way things are done in the US. The tax filing system. Mass | incarceration. Problematic police departments. Reproductive | rights. Privacy rights. And on and on and on. | | But few (if any) representatives seem to want to fix any of this | stuff. I see no progress. Just an ever increasing partisan divide | based largely around religion and an "us vs them" mentality. | | Where do we go from here? Does this stuff ever get better? | russh wrote: | Dose it get better? No. It's very a profitable setup for some, | and representatives need support from some to maintain their | position so they can do "Good." Trying to make stuff better | will get you branded somewhere between a raciest and a Nazi. | bandyaboot wrote: | I'm curious of what sort of examples you would categorize as | "people who were trying to make things better but ended up | getting branded as racist or nazi". | [deleted] | [deleted] | lucideer wrote: | There's problems in every country - no political system is | devoid of corruption, cronyism and the influence of lobbyists. | But one thing I do find unusual about US (and to a lesser | extent the UK) politics is how extreme the partisan nature of | every aspect of politics is. Any explicit discussion of | politics is about "sides"; even the most good-natured | discussions are about "balancing" red and blue, rather than | representing the reality of diversity of thought. And that word | - "diversity" - even means something different in the US than | elsewhere: rather than actual diversity (acceptance of a | spectrum), it rather tends to mean hitting a set of strictly | predefined (discrete!) boxes. | | I can't help but think - especially given the existence of some | parallels in UK politics - that FPTP must have some input into | creating this culture. | toss1 wrote: | This stuff literally only gets better if people get out and | vote | | Politics in the western world is shedding the 19-20th-century | ideologies and right/left wing parties and devolving into at | it's root, autocracy vs small-d democracy. | | The problem here is that the autocrats also support 'free- | market capitalism' (which works basically as described in this | article - crony capitalism), and motivates their voting blocs | with fear. Their voting blocks vote reliably. The result is | things like Trump and Brexit. | | The small-d democratic parties basically motivate their voters | with hope and freedom to do your own thing. the problem is that | their voters tend to do their own thing, and that thing is not | attempting to control others for profit, and they tend to be | apathetic about voting. Especially since their demographic | tends to be young, and the young are famous for having loads of | political opinions but not actually showing up to vote - | especially in minor elections, such as mid-terms and state | elections in the USA. Active disinformation campaigns don't | help. | | Somehow, the Nordic countries seem to have cracked the | participation code a few generations ago, and are anti- | autocratic and nice places to live. Whether this can be | sustained in other democracies is an open question. | kodyo wrote: | > This stuff literally only gets better if people get out and | vote | | citation needed. | micromacrofoot wrote: | On the contrary, what do you think _not_ voting is going to | accomplish. | notreallyserio wrote: | The movement to denigrate voting as useless has been so | unbelievably harmful. I don't know what to do about it, | though. Cynicism is cheap and easy. | tomrod wrote: | The US system elects based on popularity, but the problems | require technocrats. Decrease in educational standards and | funding, as well as funding for other services, is both the | reason and part of the answer. | | We need bureaucracies that can be evaluated on efficiency in | performance to mission. Many US representatives, ideologically, | want to starve the US government of resources for a variety of | reasons (serving the wealthy, lost cause, religious background, | Reaganite). Rather than target efficiency, it's a simpler | narrative to point to an underfunded, possibly brain-drained | agency and make fun of its failings as it seeks to achieve its | particular mission. | JasonFruit wrote: | > We need bureaucracies that can be evaluated on efficiency | in performance to mission. | | That implies that there's broad agreement on a) the mission | of various government agencies, and b) the desirability of | the mission or even the agency. There are large subsets of | the American population that question the desirability and | disagree about the mission of the ATF, DEA, INS, CIA, FBI, | and several other agencies. Electing and appointing people | who are good at accomplishing those missions is not enough to | satisfy many Americans. | tomrod wrote: | > a) the mission of various government agencies | | Yes, they can typically be found on the website. | | > b) the desirability of the mission or even the agency | | Elect legislatures to remove undesired agencies. Simply | starving them from legislated mandates is passive | aggressive. | bin_bash wrote: | I suspect the filibuster will fall within the next decade. Once | that happens I imagine we'll see more changes in federal laws: | for better or worse. | bombcar wrote: | We have examples of one-party states for awhile now, and none | of them seem to be doing much in the way of big bold strides. | cercatrova wrote: | China makes pretty big and bold strides, for better or | worse. | bombcar wrote: | True, but China isn't (yet) a US State. | | Something like the Prime Law of Politics applies | everywhere and at all times; things tend to stay the same | even with apparently "large" political changes, because | in mostly democratic countries, the people have what they | want, even if they complain about it. | micromacrofoot wrote: | We'll also see laws flapping back and fourth between | administrations. This already happens with some funding for | NGOs and they hate it (funding for birth control and | abortions in sub-saharan africa is one notable example). It's | going to be very stressful. | JasonFruit wrote: | Should we be able to chart a consistent course on issues | where there is no broad agreement among the people? Should | the government involve itself in such issues at all, rather | than leaving highly controversial purposes to be | accomplished by voluntary means? | ryankshaw wrote: | to me, the biggest problems with recreation.gov are: | | 1) the incentive to have lotteries for things (like angels | landing in Zion, half dome cables in Yosemite, etc) where you | have to pay just to enter the lottery and are out your money even | if you are not selected. none of that money goes to actually help | maintain that national park. BOA just pockets it | | 2) it has completely changed the landscape of who is in the | campgrounds from local families that went up the canyon for the | weekend with their kids to professional #vanlife / RVers that pay | memberships into these services that tell them exactly which | spots to book at exactly which time 8 months in advance so they | can continue their year round lifestyle of living on the road | aaroninsf wrote: | recreation.gov is one of a rare few citizen-facing sites/apps | (another is Libby) which are _good_ in almost every way that they | need to be. | | I use both of these every week, often every day; and they are | continue to evolve to get out of the way and let me get what I | need quickly. Perfect? No. Infinitely better than they could be? | Absolutely. | | Compare the site California decided to use after opting out of | standard consolidated solutions. It's mildly better now, at least | it can load and refresh, but it was _god awful_ for years after | launch. | | This is a _win._ | timmaah wrote: | Mildly better is being kind to Reserve California. Florida saw | what CA did and decided to follow in their footsteps, and now | this new setup is the standard consolidated solution?!? | boozthrowaway wrote: | I worked at Booz Allen on this project for some time actually | before moving onto other projects during my time at the company. | If I recall correctly, the site was made in React and used the | internal government cloud. | my69thaccount wrote: | Doesn't React break accessibility requirements for government | sites? | csharpminor wrote: | Honestly recreation.gov is one of the few government websites | that has a "good" user experience. I'm not a fan of BAH but I | think they executed well in this case. | | While $184M may sound like a lot, compare that to the $200M+ that | was spent on the failed launch of Healthcare.gov - taxpayers got | nothing out of that. That work was scrapped. That website | ultimately cost closer to $840M. | | What you don't see in these numbers are the insane requirements | needed to launch successfully. It's not just building an AirBnb | clone for parks, there is a huge amount of bureaucracy and | stakeholder management in a national project like this. | | $20M in annual recurring profit also doesn't sound like that much | in the grand scheme of things. Morally I wish it wasn't | necessary, but practically it's impossible to deliver quality | customer service without some form of financial performance | incentive. | | Would I love to live in a world where government employs | programmers and DIYs this stuff much cheaper and more | efficiently? Of course. USDS and 18F are bright spots that are | trying. But they also don't have the capacity to work on anything | except high priority projects. | mceoin wrote: | Worth noting is that USDS actually played a critical role at a | critical moment in improving the Rec.gov RFP. Charles | Worthington deserves special commendation for his technical | acumen in representing the people/gov't. | | Most government RFPs do not get this same level of technical | oversight and - short of building an entire technical branch to | build the actual services themselves - the rec.gov experience | led me to believe that at least having a highly technical | _government representative_ in the RFP process is critical to | setting the conditions for a good outcome. | | Without USDS, the National Parks Service would have been left | to navigate the technical minutia through the "helpful" | commentary of private contractors alone. | sbuccini wrote: | Is there any place I can read more about this? | tomrod wrote: | There are a slew of new digital services firms that are trying | to build exactly this. | | Government has a workforce challenge -- it is aging out, being | starved of resources, and technology isn't core to agency | mission(s). For decades they have outsourced to the same set of | big companies that often failed to deliver. 18F and USDS are | more than small departments -- they are bootcamps for the | people who go through and then impact the the agencies and | firms they move on to after. They were really inspired by the | failure, then success, of healthcare.gov. | | 10 years ago upwards of 80% of government IT projects failed. | This is improving. | mattmcknight wrote: | They also refuse to pay market rates on the basis of skills. | packetslave wrote: | By law, no government employee can have a salary higher | than a member of congress (174,000). | mandevil wrote: | I don't think this is true. GS grades are capped by the | compensation of Level IV of the Executive Schedule | (sometimes with locality pay they would exceed that and | so they get capped), which is roughly the same as | Congress salary, but definitely SES pay tops out a good | 25k above that. | | Grow up in the DC area and even if you never work for the | Gov't directly you just absorb this information out of | the air. | nonameiguess wrote: | Exceptions are made for federally-employed physicians, | which is the only reason the military is able to have its | own doctors. They could easily do the same industry gap | compensation bonus on top of schedule for engineers if | the non-government market gets to be similar to the | physician market. | tomrod wrote: | You might be missing some nuance. From January 2022: | | Level I: $226,300 | | Level II: $203,700 | | Level III: $187,300 | | Level IV: $176,300 | | Level V: $165,300 | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Schedule | mandevil wrote: | Well, but Executive Schedule people are essentially all | political appointees, not individual contributors. This | is the several hundred people who get appointed by the | President- most of them requiring Senate approval- and | come in to be the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense | for Reserve Affairs or whatever. This is not the Civil | Service but the political appointees who sit on top of | them and cycle out regularly back to think-tanks or | industry jobs when their party loses an election. | | (https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GPO-PLUMBOOK-2020/ | is the full list of these positions) | [deleted] | count wrote: | SES is not political appointees. SES are career | executives, and generally serve through many | administrations. Political appointees are usually | 'Secretaries' and that ilk, which may be 'SES' | equivalent, non-career/competitive appointments, but are | not Career SES. | | There are TONS of SES folks below the appointee level. | [deleted] | tomrod wrote: | This is due to the starving of resources: both in budget, | and in policy to address mismatches from the market for | employees. | wing-_-nuts wrote: | I interned with the navy in college. I _wanted_ to be a | federal employee when I graduated. I even had special | consideration due to my internship, and my disability. Did I? | No. I did not. | | The experience of trying to get a federal job was _abysmally_ | bad. First, there are precious few GS positions that actually | do coding. Everything seems to be contracted out. The few | positions that were there were _very_ hard to apply for. I | applied to every position I found across 5 different states, | and my resume simply disappeared into a bureaucratic black | hole. | | After a month or so of that nonsense, I threw in the towel | and looked for something in the private sector. The | difference was a breath of fresh air. I got interviews in | days, offers in weeks, and I've made enough money that I'm | basically financially independent at this point. | | The government has a _long_ way to go with their hiring | process. | goplayoutside wrote: | The thrust of TFA addresses the misaligned financial incentives | and the problems inherent in outsourcing aspects of public | lands management to entities with a profit motive. | | It has little to nothing negative to say about the site's UX. | site-packages1 wrote: | I agree with this. I am no fan of BAH for personal reasons | having been forced to work adjacent to them, but the | recreation.gov website is quite good and a good experience, | coming from someone who uses it extensively for camping. | goplayoutside wrote: | The site's UX is not at issue. | | TFA focuses on the significant problem of mismanagement of US | public lands, and the extent to which handing over such a | large amount of control over these publicly owned resources | to a private entity with a profit motive has lead to negative | results. | | The design and functioning of rec.gov itself is not even | tangential to the subject. | dallasg3 wrote: | USDS is United States Digital Service and 18F is part of the | GSA. 18F is short for 1800 F Street, which is the address in | Washington DC for the GSA. | | https://www.usds.gov https://18f.gsa.gov/about | my69thaccount wrote: | > 18F is short for 1800 F Street | | 18F sounds like a company you'd buy sketchy porn magazines or | mail order brides from | toomuchtodo wrote: | > Would I love to live in a world where government employs | programmers and DIYs this stuff much cheaper and more | efficiently? Of course. USDS and 18F are bright spots that are | trying. But they also don't have the capacity to work on | anything except high priority projects. | | Appropriate more funds. If this is an issue of citizen | stakeholder engagement, I ask someone point in the necessary | direction besides my Congressional reps. | csharpminor wrote: | Other levels of gov have funding issues, but not federal. In | fact, big appropriation bills often create these mega- | procurements that companies like BAH latch on to. | | Government's ability to attract people who could execute a | project like this requires different compensation and career | incentives. Base pay is capped at <$150k for the highest GS | level at the highest step. There's also no real potential for | bonuses or equity. | | Beyond pay, government careers fundamentally optimize for | low-risk decision-making. The goal is to not get fired over | 20 years so that you can retire with a pension. This is why | contractors like BAH gets hired: you, as a government program | manager, don't get fired for going with a brand name even if | they fail. If you hire some unknown development firm with | great tech skills and they fail, you get canned. | | There's also a lack of bold leadership and urgency that is | customer-experience focused. Healtchare.gov benefitted from | some amazing engineers, but the true catalyst for its | comeback was that Obama realized it was a do-or-die | initiative for his administration. His team moved heaven-and- | earth to steamroll entrenched vendors, recruit talent, and | hold people accountable. | | Leadership and talent are what make the difference. | toomuchtodo wrote: | Very much aware. Have gone through the USDS hiring pipeline | and was extended an offer. Your tour of duty is limited | (between 6 months-2 years) due to how they hack the GS | payscale, and I argue USDS/18F _has_ the leadership and | talent to deliver based on all available evidence. Matt | Cutts did exceedingly well considering resourcing and his | mandate, and I have similar hopes for the new USDS | administrator. They produce results, full stop. | | https://www.usds.gov/report-to-congress/2016/ | | https://www.usds.gov/report-to-congress/2017/fall/ | | https://www.usds.gov/resources/USDS-Impact-Report-2020.pdf | alexose wrote: | Appropriate more funds, yes, but more importantly: Fix | procurement. This is where there real down-in-the-trenches | work needs to happen. Fix every single agency's approach to | software procurement, one by one, until the entire federal | government is properly incentivized to fund high quality FOSS | software for the long haul. | | It's a little better than it used to be with FedRAMP and | such. But even now, agencies are still relying on broken-by- | design contracts for terrible proprietary software. | toomuchtodo wrote: | Sounds like a technology practitioner from USDS embedding | into agencies to teach their procurement folks how to | procure tech, correct? | flipgimble wrote: | For years I was musing about a camping trip to Shenandoah | National Park which is only a couple hours away from me. However | due to family, busy work, and laziness I would start planning too | late and saw most spots booked on rec.gov. I would usually blame | myself for lack of organization | | This year I decided to just pack my car with equipment and drive | to SNP one very early morning. At worst I would spend hours in | the car for a day hike. However it turns out that many camping | spots are available on first-come-first-serve basis, and not | online. Another group without reservations joined my camping spot | bordering the forest and it was a fun hanging out and chatting | with strangers. You can also find plenty of camping space near | hiking shelters, or with a permit in the back-country provided | you're aware of the regulations and bear safety. | | After that first trip, I was kicking myself for forming a mental | model of camping as severely constrained by space and crowds. I | think that false model formed by relying on only rec.gov and some | online articles about how crowded the Appalachian Trail has | become. I hear the hiking crowds visit SNP in May-June, so we'll | see how it goes. | uoflcards22 wrote: | rec.gov is one of the least shitty government websites out there. | | With the GS pay system, we cannot expect to get decent technology | out of our government. This is sadly the best alternative. | goplayoutside wrote: | TFA addresses the problems with outsourcing a significant | component of public lands management to a private entity with a | profit motive. | | The site's UX is not at issue here. | anm89 wrote: | This article reads like a 14 year old who is mad at society for | the first time in their life. | | "That website is made by a company worth 14 Billion with a B!" | There are around 1000 companies with a Billion or greater market | cap. Is this supposed to be a criticism? | goplayoutside wrote: | Outrage at mismanagement of public lands is not uncommon | amongst those of us who follow the issue closely. | | I think Paul's emphasis on BAH's financials is meant to support | the argument that a significant element of the management of a | publicly owned resource should not have been handed over to an | entity that is driven by profit motive. | | And signing over authority over pricing and eliminating much of | the public oversight was especially inappropriate. | mceoin wrote: | I was intimately familiar with the period in time during which | Booze Allen won the Rec.gov contract. (My company was a founding | member of AccessLand.org, a coalition of non-profit and for- | profit orgs pushing for open data reform for America's parks.) As | much as I want to dunk on BAH for their spook work, and more | broadly opine on the the parasitical undermining of government by | corporate lobbyists, it is important to give credit where it is | due and recognize the overall-great work that BAH did on the | rec.gov contract. | | People forget that before BAH, Reserve America (owned by IAC) | used to have the federal and California contracts. RA delivered a | terrible experience, never innovated or iterated, did the least | amount of work possible, stripped their own internal team down to | a skeleton crew in order to juice profits, and maximally | leveraged their incumbency. What was supposed to be a 5 year | contract turned into a 10 year contract, and then they leached | out further profits by holding the transfer to BAH off for years | through legal shenanigans. The RA team were transparently | unethical, and in private meetings would say things that you | might expect from a government contractor who truly thinks they | have monopoly status and cannot be displaced. They did not have | the user's best interest at heart. | | Schadenfreude is generally distasteful, but I'm not above saying | how pleased I was to see Reserve America lose the federal and | California contracts. | | By contrast, my experience with the BAH team was that they | brought "best-practices" to the table (they ran agile sprints, | for starters), openly dialogued with community members to seek | feedback on how best to improve Rec.gov, and had recruited an | internal team that obviously cared about building a great | experience for the parks, and for the government generally. BAH | were not actively hostile to open data ideals -- unlike other | bidders, including RA -- and seemed to have a more inclusive | attitude to how government can be transformed through APIs and | open data, whereby the gov't contractor would build and maintain | the core infrastructure, but 3rd parties could compete to provide | better services to the public. In short, BAH operated in a good | faith attitude and generally succeeded in building a good | experience for users. As many comments here reflect, Rec.gov | stands unique among many government websites and services as a | pretty solid experience. | | On the downside: BAH has failed to provide full open-data access | to 3rd parties. There is still no place online that a developer | can register an API key and check availability data (an | outstanding requirement of the RFP contract) -- some 3rd parties | do have access to this data, but by failing to make availability | data publicly and easily accessible, innovation here has been | stymied. Conversations with 3rd parties to design and negotiate a | 3rd party bookings API have also not materialized, as they said | they would in good faith. These shortcomings are frustrating, and | represent missed opportunities for BAH to continue building upon | their infrastructure in providing a template for Govt services, | and turning around their brand. | | By contrast, Xerox won the California contract; an unusable | abomination of contractor hack work. I did not think it was | possible to do worse than RA, but they have somehow managed it. I | suspect, however, that this is largely through incompetence | rather than malice on their part. Unfortunately, without a full | availability and bookings API, no 3rd parties can improve the | experience either so we're stuck with reservecalifornia.com for | the interminable future. | | As much as I want to bag on the profit motive behind BAH, this OP | article is missing some historical nuance about how bad things | were, and could still be. | subsubzero wrote: | If you think rec.gov is bad wait until you see parks.ca.gov. Its | probably one of the worst campsite booking sites ever made. | Rec.gov isn't that bad imo. | mceoin wrote: | Brought to you by Xerox (yep!) | [deleted] | dmckeon wrote: | I have no issue with online reservations or contractors, but do | have an issue with the incentive of application fees: to enter a | lottery for a reservation, every applicant pays a fee, whether | they get a reservation or not. After the lottery, the contractor | keeps all the application fees.[0] | | The contractor could increase their profit at very little cost | simply by getting more people to apply for the same limited | number of reservations. Dark pattern, perverse incentive, or | profit model? Does even Ticketmaster have that level of chutzpah? | | [0] FTA: | https://www.nps.gov/glac/planyourvisit/gtsrticketedentry.htm | timmaah wrote: | > From a selfish standpoint, this type of system discourages | spontaneous trips. When I did my road trip three years ago, I | already noticed the trend of mandating an RSVP for any activity. | I am not against any RSVPs as I understand the concept of | resource protection, but with a greed-based system with profit | and not sustainability as its goal, there are fewer incentives to | set aside spots for walk-ups. | | The increased demand makes `walk-ups` a logistical headache for | workers (volunteers) on the ground. If there are X amount of | campsites available as first-come-first-served, the campground | host then has to spend time turning away people all day when | those spots get filled by 9am. | | I'm not certain what the solution is for bringing the type of | spontaneity back that many people crave, but the reservation | system is in place for a reason. Crazy demand for nature. | dreamcompiler wrote: | Exactly. When I went camping 20 years ago it was easy to just | pull in to a nice park when we got tired of pulling the | trailer. We would almost always get a campsite. | | No more. Nowadays there seems to be 10x the number of RVs in | use and advance reservations are mandatory. We never even try | to camp in places that are "first come/first served" today | because it's completely hopeless. The only places where fc/fs | works today are commercial RV parks where you'll pay $50-$100 | per night for a camping spot packed in like sardines with | everybody else. | mordechai9000 wrote: | > The increased demand makes `walk-ups` a logistical headache | for workers (volunteers) on the ground. | | I don't remember this really being a problem, though. If a site | is unoccupied and untagged, you know it's available. Otherwise, | it's not. | | But without reservations you can't reliably plan anything now, | because of the high demand, so i understand it's not an easy | problem. | stinkytaco wrote: | It's the angry stream of people you need to turn away that | becomes the issue. It's not confusing, it's just time | consuming and frustrating for all involved. Doubly so if | there's an event the overwhelms your normal facilities and | staffing. | | I recall a bedraggled stream of cars and park officials when | I camped to see the solar eclipse in Nebraska. All very nice | people, one even drove around to issue protective lenses to | all the campers that didn't bring them, but I sure | sympathized with those who didn't make reservations and those | who had to disappoint them. | dillondoyle wrote: | I both feel it sucks while it also clearly is necessary. But I | think they can make things more equitable and we need to invest | money to increase access. | | scarce back country permits for popular places should be a | raffle system not refresh as fast as possible. That system | would be hard for 2 night trips, but maybe set aside like 10% | for that, let them allocate first, then open 1 nights. | | imho give some chunk of preference to locals and sports/non car | touring uses. E.g. RMNP climbing is my personal example. I've | never had a problem getting in, but I also usually climb at | night. The top parking lot is pretty small and filled up in the | mornings. But people that have to carry gear should get | preference, it's much easier to take the bus without gear. AND | if you're staying later having to walk an extra couple miles | with pads or bags bc the bus stopped sucks. | | RMNP is also just a prime example of awfulness of crowds and | people. There are one or two trails that almost all visitors go | on. They don't venture out even though it's such a huge | beautiful park. | | Part of it is ease of trails. At least partially concrete and | very short. But the facilities are _disgusting_ just a few | bathrooms and people sh*t on the floor... | | People are awful, loud, littering, rude. Hard to fix that. | | Would love to discourage car touring where people stop on roads | you can't get around. Big % of people go to the big 4 and don't | get out of their cars for more than a couple feet to intrude on | animals for selfies. | | Also cars are just awful polluters minimally try to minimize | idling. Encourage people to actually get out in nature. | | I get there accessibility issues that's an able est bias, hence | building out more easy / paved loops. | | We should definitely protect land and animals. But there is a | huge amount of space to open up. | | Building more facilities/enforcement would better protect the | land too. | | Maybe have some of those armed rangers who roll around in giant | SUVs instead walk and stop littering (that's jest, it's crazy | the amount of them that carry guns). | | Especially if you bring in and build out forest service land. | | Marketing might help too, there are so many amazing places that | don't get traffic it's all going to the same few spots. | stewx wrote: | The solution is the same one used by airlines and hotels: | dynamic demand-driven pricing, charging enough that you don't | sell all your seats until the last minute. | | An airline that sold out of all its seats 6 months ahead of | time would be considered incompetent, but governments do this | all the time with reservations for various activities, because | they are trying to "be nice" by charging low entry fees. | kevinh wrote: | How is that a better solution? | stewx wrote: | It solves the spontaneity issue. It ensures that tickets | are almost always available, no matter when you book, even | fairly last minute. | | The reason they won't do it is because it's more | complicated to implement and people will complain in the | media about govt "gouging" residents. | kevinh wrote: | Yeah, it solves the spontaneity issue by guaranteeing | only the richest have access. | uoaei wrote: | It's called "public land" because it is already paid for, and | effectively owned, by the public. I would consider a | government who resorted to market solutions "incompetent". | timmaah wrote: | No. Just no. | | Public lands and access to public lands can't be a playground | for the rich and entitled. | goplayoutside wrote: | That might be a reasonable solution for a private business, | but it's not appropriate for public lands. | | Increasing prices will only exacerbate the existing issues | around equitable access. | | Here's an article[1] describing a University of Montana study | on the subject, for anyone who would like to consider the | issue in greater depth. | | [1] https://archive.ph/7EDcJ | catern wrote: | Increasing prices will _increase_ equity. By charging rich | people more, you can afford to give greater subsidies for | marginalized groups and poor people, and _lower_ the price | from whatever it is currently for them. You can even use | that revenue to _pay them_ to go camping, if you really | want to! | uoaei wrote: | Assuming those subsidies and rebates are actually | administrated. That's a very big assumption and all | precedent points in the opposite direction. | goplayoutside wrote: | Maybe. | | In any event, that unlikely to be helpful in this | specific situation, as the majority of all revenues from | rec.gov go directly to BAH[1], rather than to the public | land management agencies responsible for stewarding the | resources in the public interest. | | BAH also has price setting authority, with a dearth of | public oversight. | | [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31369931 | manachar wrote: | A great example is sunrise at the peak in Haleakala National | park on Maui. | | So many people were crowding the top that they started parking | on critically endangered species and making an amazing | experience something of a zoo. Something had to be done. | | The reservation approach is two pronged. One batch of the | majority of reservations is offered well in advanced. Then | something like 48 hours before hand the final batch is offered. | | This helps those who want more spontaneous while also keeping | the numbers manageable. | | Bluntly, the US population has mostly grown to the point where | we are regularly having to deal with the fact that some things | and experiences are just limited. | | There's something endearing and maddening about a culture like | ours that just flat out doesn't understand limits. | kingcharles wrote: | > Bluntly, the US population has mostly grown to the point | where we are regularly having to deal with the fact that some | things and experiences are just limited. | | This is the bigger problem. Not just US population, but world | population has grown enormously, and is richer, and travel is | cheaper. So there are exponentially more people arriving at | tourist destinations that a hundred years ago received only a | handful of people a week. | | Look at Everest. Total clusterfuck. | | https://s.abcnews.com/images/Nightline/190531_ntl_climber_01. | .. | dariusj18 wrote: | I've been mulling over the colonial era privileges that | people expect to be able to have. But with a greater | population, especially a wealthier population, the old | timey vacation that everyone imagines just isn't possible. | This disparity is part of the loss felt by those with | privilege. | khuey wrote: | For some of the things the author complains about there really | are no good options. You can only shove so many people up the | Half Dome cables on any given day or so many campsites in | Yosemite Valley before it becomes a nightmare. You can't just | build more of the experiences people are looking for in national | parks like you can build taller buildings in a city. So your | options are to ration by price (which NPS/etc generally don't | do), to ration by luck (lotteries for e.g. Half Dome), or to | ration by ability to plan ahead (far-in-advance reservations for | campgrounds). None of these are great but what is the | alternative? | throwaway1777 wrote: | Make the experience so crappy that no one wants it anymore? | khuey wrote: | Yes, "demand destruction" is another option but I think less | than ideal. | cardiffspaceman wrote: | It's Nature. It is crappy already. When I went up Half Dome | in the 70s It was the middle of June and pretty hot. It's a | long walk and all of it is steep and some of it is slippery | and scary. But "I'm a tough mountaineer" so I didn't turn | back. And that image/ego thing is why making it crappy will | not work. | mauvehaus wrote: | Read "Industrial Tourism and the National Parks" by Edward | Abbey in Desert Solitaire. His solution is as simple as making | people get off their asses and walk or bike, etc, rather than | the then-current trend of building paved roads and parking lots | ever closer to the "attractions". | | There is, believe it or not, an IMAX theater right outside of | Zion that shows movies of the park. My first reaction was to be | appalled by the brazen crassness of such a thing. In time, my | opinion has softened: if it diverts people from coming into the | park for nothing more than a look around, great. Let them stay | the hell out of the park and move on to the next checkbox on | their vacation. It'll be less crowded for those of us who do | like to hike. | | Abridged version here: | | https://lvk104.wordpress.com/2010/03/12/polemic-industrial-t... | stinkytaco wrote: | Though I like this idea, as I age, I sympathize with people | who are unable to do this for a variety of reasons. I'm sure | those people can be accommodated, but that opens the door to | abuse, putting us right back in this position. | JasonFruit wrote: | This is the solution: not only does it manage demand, it | reduces initial and maintenance costs and decreases | destruction of natural lands. I couldn't come up with as good | and natural a response to this problem. | goplayoutside wrote: | >There is, believe it or not, an IMAX theater right outside | of Zion that shows movies of the park. | | There's one in Tusayan on the way to the South Rim of the | Grand Canyon, as well. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-05-13 23:01 UTC)