[Kim Brown]

The docs discuss shuttle services from outside the park. It's in the Alternatives Discussed But Uh-uh section, or some such title. The method of reservation isn't detailed, as it has not been chosen and/or the Alternative far enough along to know; but if it's anything like backpacking reservations, most people won't have a chance at a reasonable vacation plan. A family would have to secure reservations within a minute of the launch each year in January. Then the fight is on for motel reservations. I can't imagine how frustrating that would be and how much not a vacation that is. But people do this kind of thing, I suppose, and it's the norm for some folks - they travel to places with red tape all the time. I don't see anywhere that local impromptu show-up-and-hike reservations are stashed away somewhere. Might be, but I just did a cursory glance. the Preferred Alternative doesn't look horrible, for what it is. I don't like any of it, but they do have to do something. And it probably will be a cluster. And in each alternative proposed, monitoring and reassessing is included, as it is a requirement; but good lord, what a mess. A perpetual mess.

[altasnob]

[Malachai Constant]

Last year we were in a two hour line to get into Canyonlands NP Island in the Sky which had no timed entry. We spoke with others one of which had a timed entry pass to Arches who said when they showed up on time they still had to weight two hours there. Accedotal evidence sure but fact.

[Kim Brown]

I don't know what a short-term purchase is - I'm not hip on National Park hoopla. I agree it doesn't look horrible. But maybe it is - I don't hike MRNP often. Once every few years. Even if a good plan, it will be a clusterf* until it's dialed in. And even after it is up and running, most visitors won't do it correctly anyway; but that's not new. If a comment is submitted that suggests a change or points out an error in the plan that makes it better, that would be cool. I'm not one to do it though for those reasons stated above. I would think it would need to be consistent in order to work. From X date to X date, reservations required. If they start messing around with dates, it will be even more confusing than it already will be to would-be visitors. I wonder if places like Federation Forest or other agency lands will receive more visitors - those that are turned away at the gate will want to go somewhere with thier pic-a-nic baskets; that's an impact. Most folks don't even see Federation Forest as they drive by, so maybe not.

[treeswarper]

Time to think outside of the parking lot. Expand Slugman's plan. Build a rail or shuttle system that starts in the Seattle/Tacoma area, with a few stops to pick up passengers along the way. Leave your cars at home. Later on, expand it to other areas. I am disappointed that nobody seems to think beyond making it more convenient for cars. Walk your talk on being environmentally friendly. Set an example. Times are changing. Cars are taking up too much space. No more parking lots. Remember--parking lots are long term deforestation. Deforestation is bad.

[treeswarper]

[kiliki]

[thunderhead]

Increase prices. That will decrease the craziness and fund improved infrastructure.

[Cyclopath]

[zimmertr]

I think it should be free for everyone. Even non-citizens.

[thunderhead]

Could make it free or cheap on off days. Use price to control crouds during the peak season, at least until the park service gets off its butt to increase parking/gate lanes.

[Stefan]

The actual problem is sex. Sex breeds humans. Too many humans.

[treeswarper]

[Kim Brown]

I'm wondering if anyone has made a response to the NPS proposal?

[altasnob]

We have until June 11 to make a comment, so what's the rush? Also, it seems like a forgone conclusion that reserved timed entry is coming. Only the minute details are left to sort out.