I don't understand what the problem is here. Recreation.gov is one of the few government websites that actually does what you'd expect in a relatively streamlined way. Agency managed websites are typically a hot mess... I'm looking at you USFS website.
Totally agree. I feel like some of these articles are written by children these days. Do you not understand that someone had to pay for the website to be built?
And having transaction fees is a good way to try different models. Good ideas with aligned incentives should be celebrated.
Don’t forget, the alternative would’ve still been the traditional “pay some defense contractor millions to do a shitty job and then pay them millions more to improve it”
Also, the headline is sensationalist. The total cost per ticket the buyer pays is $2 per vehicle. I've been to state parks that charge more. Yeah, it adds up to millions for the seller, but they're not charging extortionate prices.
Now that we know this type of contract model works, and if people are bothered by the unexpected windfall, future contracts can be structured differently to taper off or something.
I will say that I take issue with the fact that several of the more popular trails/areas where permits are issued by lottery. Recreation.gov charges a $10 lottery fee, which you pay even if you don’t get a permit, on top of the fee for the actual permit.
Note that the application fees are separate from the permit itself as well:
Application Fee: A non-refundable $9.00 lottery fee is required for each lottery application.
Recreation Fee: If selected in the lottery, a recreation fee of $7.00 per person or dog is required. This fee is paid online when filling in additional information to complete the process after successfully winning. Everyone, regardless of age, must be included in the permit. This includes infants that are not walking. Payment of recreation fees is only required if a permit is awarded through the lottery.
How else would you suggest they do it? Demand has out placed the supply, it's either they charge a shitload, putting it out of reach for all but the elites, or put it behind a lottery.
the lottery itself is reasonable but $9 to participate in a digital drawing only feels ok if i think that around 90% of that is going to the national park. - It seems like what this article is saying is that you're paying $9 (edit: $5) to the contractor who runs the website, has a monopoly on the lottery system, and gets to set the lottery price. hence the ticketmaster comparison.
I'm pretty sympathetic to the argument that these drawings should be extremely inexpensive ($1?) and there should be some transparancy where the fee goes.
Also not mentioned in the article - I'm most familiar with how Yosemite and the parks in the sierras do it, but in those parks for popular trails there's a 6-month-in-advance lottery system, but there's also something like 10% of the quota reserved for 1-day-in-advance walk-up tickets only. So you either have to win a lottery that favors the preppy planners, OR be willing to wake up in the middle of the night and stand outside a park office for a few hours until they open. Not perfect, but it gives some options.
That seems like a crappy contract? Payment for each reservation made?
Why not just bill for design, building and roll out of the system and then monthly maintenance charges?
It's not like Booz Allen incurs a cost for each reservation made (or if it doesn't it's incredibly small). It's mostly fixed costs of setting up and maintaining the system.
Well it's crappy because of the surge. Those deals are always "$100k upfront or we will take about $20k/year in administration fees". The decision makers can take an easier decision and the upfront cost (and risk) is taken by the developer in exchange for a sweeter deal long term.
18 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 51.9 ms ] threadAnd having transaction fees is a good way to try different models. Good ideas with aligned incentives should be celebrated.
Don’t forget, the alternative would’ve still been the traditional “pay some defense contractor millions to do a shitty job and then pay them millions more to improve it”
Now that we know this type of contract model works, and if people are bothered by the unexpected windfall, future contracts can be structured differently to taper off or something.
https://www.recreation.gov/permits/4251909
Note that the application fees are separate from the permit itself as well:
Application Fee: A non-refundable $9.00 lottery fee is required for each lottery application.
Recreation Fee: If selected in the lottery, a recreation fee of $7.00 per person or dog is required. This fee is paid online when filling in additional information to complete the process after successfully winning. Everyone, regardless of age, must be included in the permit. This includes infants that are not walking. Payment of recreation fees is only required if a permit is awarded through the lottery.
https://www.recreation.gov/permits/4251909
Application Fee: A non-refundable $9.00 lottery fee is required for each lottery application.
I went to the lottery a few times in Kanab and never got a permit. I've resigned myself to the fact that I'll probably never get one now.
I'm pretty sympathetic to the argument that these drawings should be extremely inexpensive ($1?) and there should be some transparancy where the fee goes.
Also not mentioned in the article - I'm most familiar with how Yosemite and the parks in the sierras do it, but in those parks for popular trails there's a 6-month-in-advance lottery system, but there's also something like 10% of the quota reserved for 1-day-in-advance walk-up tickets only. So you either have to win a lottery that favors the preppy planners, OR be willing to wake up in the middle of the night and stand outside a park office for a few hours until they open. Not perfect, but it gives some options.
But the code my tax dollars paid for should be open source and the contract should be biddable periodically.
An endless monopoly is not right in my opinion.
See also: Comcast.
[1] - https://archive.is/20230409014718/https://www.wsj.com/articl...
Why not just bill for design, building and roll out of the system and then monthly maintenance charges?
It's not like Booz Allen incurs a cost for each reservation made (or if it doesn't it's incredibly small). It's mostly fixed costs of setting up and maintaining the system.