Fee Free??!!!!

[climbant]

Sounds like the adventure pass might be out.

http://m.pe.com/article.html#!/105249/a ... 4823787404

[climbant]

Not sure what's going on but every time I put the URL in the post comes up blank. It's on the press enterprise site.

http://m.pe.com/article.html#!/105249/a ... 4823787404

Maybe that will work.

[Screerider]

http://www.pe.com/local-news/local-news-headlines/20131209-region-forest-service-plans-to-ditch-fee.ece

yep

[Hikin_Jim]

The software here on the forum is a bit weird when it comes to URL's. I adjusted them as best I could. You'll probably have to cut and past climbant's in order to read them.

HJ

[Hikin_Jim]

Regarding the article itself:

The changes, still subject to public comment, would eliminate fees in some areas of the San Bernardino, Cleveland, Angeles and Los Padres national forests. [emphasis added]

Doesn't look like they're dropping the fee entirely.

HJ

[Andy]

I'd like to see them just install kiosks or pay stations at the specific areas that still require fees or passes...like any city pay-lot near the beach. This issue about getting rid of the Adventure Pass seems to come up every couple years , yet it never really goes away entirely. I'm all for a "use fee" as long as the funds are appropriated responsibly. I just hate having to either pony up the full $30 fee every year or try to find out if tomorrow's trail-head is a fee area or not. So far this year I've only need my pass once or twice.

[KathyW]

They are keeping the fees at the areas that get the most traffic and that have the most potential for bringing in money. I will not be suprised if gates, kiosks, and more hosts get are installed in the areas that still require fees. I hope what has happened at the Vivian Creek Trailhead does not happen at the South Fork Trailhead, but at least you can park along the road close to that trailhead.

[zippetydude]

They are keeping the fees at the areas that get the most traffic and that have the most potential for bringing in money. I will not be suprised if gates, kiosks, and more hosts get are installed in the areas that still require fees. I hope what has happened at the Vivian Creek Trailhead does not happen at the South Fork Trailhead, but at least you can park along the road close to that trailhead.

Until they post "No Parking" signs along the entire Jenks Lake Loop. That way, for a mere $100,000 installation fee they can make an extra $2000 a year. In 50 years they'll start getting ahead!

z

[KathyW]

Until they post "No Parking" signs along the entire Jenks Lake Loop. That way, for a mere $100,000 installation fee they can make an extra $2000 a year. In 50 years they'll start getting ahead!

z

Yes, that's about right if you think about it logically, but I'm not so sure the Forest Service does their accounting like a private enterprise would. The funding for the $100,000 in installation fees might not be subtracted from the $2,000 per year in income because the source of funds could be different (special grant for improvements not tied to the recreation fees). Actually, it all comes from taxpayers but it is routed differently. Anyway, I doubt they will post "No Parking" signs on Jenks Lake Road. I think that if they just allowed some parking outside the gate to the Big Falls Picnic area along the road, they would solve the issues at the Vivian Creek/Big Falls area.

[zippetydude]

I hope you're right Kathy. What made me think of that is I have seen stretches of road along the edge of regional parks where there is ample space for normal street side parking, but entire stretches of a mile or more are zoned "No Parking" so that you have to pay the fee to get in. My experience in general with any government enterprise is that there is no particular right or wrong with them, there's just the insatiable desire for money. In Redlands, they installed red-light cameras a few years ago. The cameras cut down the number of serious accidents by something like 42%. While I don't like red-light cameras, I found that number surprisingly good. What stunned me is that Redlands decided to take down the cameras because they weren't making enough profit. Yes, you read that correctly. They were making a profit. But it wasn't enough, so little irrelevant facts like lives being saved were ignored in the decision making process. Call me cynical, but I just found that amazing. Anyway, don't want to hijack the thread!

Back on topic. When all is said and done, removing the fees in little used areas is a good idea.

z