Despite the Obama Administration's drive to expand the National Park System, and with $11.5 billion in backlogged maintenance needs in the parks, the administration overlooked the National Park Service when putting together its $478 billion "Grow America" plan for improving the nation's infrastructure.
With the National Park Service's centennial arriving in August 2016, and with more than half of the agency's backlog tied to transportation-related projects, the administration's decision not to tie any of the $478 billion in the Department of Transportation proposal to park projects was soundly criticized by the National Parks Conservation Association.
The proposal, NPCA said, eliminates $240 million that typically flowed to the Park Service each year from the Federal Lands Transportation Program for infrastructure needs.
“GROW AMERICA fails our national parks by eliminating historically guaranteed funding levels for park transportation projects and ignoring $11.49 billion in backlogged transportation and maintenance needs that jeopardize public safety," said Laura Loomis, NPCA's deputy vice president of government affairs in a prepared statement.
"It’s baffling that as our National Park System prepares for its centennial with an expected increase in visitors, including young children and their families, our parks remain rife with dangerous roads and deteriorating bridges. The only thing that this drastic and unwarranted elimination of guaranteed funding will do is ensure the maintenance backlog continues to grow as our parks enter their second century.”
Infrastructure needs are many in the National Park System. According to the National Park Service, the Arlington Memorial Bridge built in 1932 across the Potomac River in Washington, D.C., between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington House, the Robert E. Lee Memorial, and Arlington Cemetery "is in a serious state of disrepair."
The bridge "was listed as structurally deficient in its most recent biennial inspection," with corrision among its steel girders, missing support stringers, crumbling sidewalks, and "significant deterioration of the concrete in the arch spans, which will require extensive rehabilitation. Finally, there are widespread areas of patching and rutting throughout the deck surface, and recent core samples indicate that the deck concrete is rapidly deteriorating."
Cost estimates to repair the bridge range from $128 million to $244 million, sums that represent 853 percent to 1627 percent of the National Capitol Region's annual allotment.
In Yellowstone National Park, while there have been some notable road improvements in recent years, "95 percent of the roads in the park are now rated in “Poor” condition," the Park Service notes. Preliminary estimates to bring the roads up to standard range from $850 million to $1.25 billion," according to the agency.
Many other road and trail projects can be found throughout the park system.
Comments
Why is the Arlington Memorial Bridge part of the NPS? This is primarily a commuter bridge.
Same question could be asked about the Baltimore-Washington Parkway and the George Washington Memorial Parkway. Having the NPS responsible for maintenance of those commuter routes is a good deal for the states of Virginia and Maryland.
Agree 100% Jim. Those are the kinds of properties that could be removed from the system, lightening its burden with no adverse impact on the NPS mission. Inclusion of the Waco Dinosaur site would be far more appropriate. But then according to many here, the locals always will fight to prevent new NPS lands. Oh wait, the locals are among the strongest proponents. So much for that theory.
If they removed half of Yellowstone's roads, and made it look like a giant 0, instead of a giant figure 8, I wouldn't complain one bit. I think there are too many roads in our National Parks, and i'd like to see a movement to either decommission a few, or even turn them to leisurely bicycle trails. It would be more cost effective long term for the government if that happened. Not everything should be paved with overlooks. Maintaining bike paths is far more manageable then maintaining road corridors in every nook and cranny.
Perhaps not, but many others would. Making someone drive 80 miles when it can be accomplished in 12 doesn't make much sense to me.
Often times, the "locals," if you mean ordinary citizens, support efforts to develop park lands around their communities or states. It is usually the influential, wealthy, greedy "locals" like land developers, mineral companies and others of that pedigree who oppose them because they may not be able to realize significant personal or corporate financial gain.
Case in point, Utah.
And yes, when I was stationed in Greenbelt Park in Maryland, the only park with a major Interstate highway and an interstate interchange within its boundaries (the Washington Beltway and Baltimore-Washington Parkway), we wondered the same thing. There are many spots in the DC area that should not be part of NPS.
Now how we gonna do that? Because now that they exist, there are people profiting and they will oppose any efforts to divest the NPS of those places with all the lobbyists and Congressional accomplices they can muster.
In both cases, Lee those profiting are far less than those that can vote. Therein lies your answer.