$13 million Upgrade To Bridalveil Falls Area

Grab your bear can or camp chair, kick your feet up and chew the fat about anything Sierra Nevada related that doesn't quite fit in any of the other forums. Within reason, (and the HST rules and guidelines) this is also an anything goes forum. Tell stories, discuss wilderness issues, music, or whatever else the High Sierra stirs up in your mind.
User avatar
Wandering Daisy
Topix Docent
Posts: 6640
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:19 pm
Experience: N/A
Location: Fair Oaks CA (Sacramento area)
Contact:

Re: $13 million Upgrade To Bridalveil Falls Area

Post by Wandering Daisy »

I am not sure how $13 million on this project compares to any other highway/construction project. Does that include long term maintainance? Extra costs are needed here because you cannot just close down the road while you work. They will have to have a lot of support services, such as flagging and traffic control. The environmental review for this project is also expensive. I am sure some expensive construction constraints will be applied for enviornmental reasons. An archeological survey may have to be done. Does anyone remember what was the cost of the Yosemite Falls project? That would provide a comparison.

Just an aside. I have spent a lot of time hiking and climbing in Yosemite Valley. Most backpackers just quickly leave the valley to get on a trial. Although the valley is NOT wilderness, just hiking or x-country skiing around the valley on the trail is really scenic. And you can walk along the banks of the Merced RIver just a few hundred feet off the trails and highway and feel very much alone. The Merced at peak flows is amazing. The waterfalls are amazing. I have used both the north Valley and south Valley trails to link several other trails such as the Pohono to Happy Isles to the North Rim Traverse, using the backpacker's campground as a stop-over. And honestly, the views from the valley, in my opinion are often superior to those on the backpack trails. Yosemite Valley is the one place where non-backpackers and the disabled can really see what in many other places is only accessible to the backpacker. This makes it very unique. Worth saving, worth preserving, and worth maintaing good access for all. This is a hard balancing act. Things are far from perfect, but I think the Park Service does a pretty good job with what they are given. Whether I think project costs are too much or totally agree with them, the Conservency has done a lot of good projects.
User avatar
John Harper
Topix Expert
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 11:54 am
Experience: N/A

Re: $13 million Upgrade To Bridalveil Falls Area

Post by John Harper »

longri wrote:
John Harper wrote:Not silly, just an example of $13 million of government spending. Not sure what DNC is. Definitely agree we all like our goodies and spend too much.
I meant it's silly to use government (or other) wasteful spending as an excuse for more wasteful spending.

DNC is the corporation you first used in a kind of weird way to lend support for this project.
I was referring to the childish extortion by DNC in copyrighting the names of Yosemite landmarks, and then holding them for ransom. Nothing to do with support of this project either way. Just an example of corpocracy at it's worst.

John
User avatar
markskor
Founding Member - RIP
Posts: 2442
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 5:41 pm
Experience: Level 4 Explorer
Location: Crowley Lake and Tuolumne Meadows

Re: $13 million Upgrade To Bridalveil Falls Area

Post by markskor »

John Harper wrote:the childish extortion by DNC in copyrighting the names of Yosemite landmarks, and then holding them for ransom. Just an example of corpocracy at it's worst.
John
Once again, disagree.
When DNC won the bid and susequently took over the Yosemite concessions from Universal, they were required (as part of the 10-year, concession contract then) to purchase these 5 copyrighted names...for somewhere around $20 million. BTW, it is necessary to have these copyrights in place in order to protect the product from non-sanctioned sellers...this is how business is done.

The Park Service then changed the rules for the latest, 10-year, concession bids. Aramark...not requiring these $20 mil copyrighted names to be part of the new concession contract. Should Aramark then pay DNC for them? (Probably, but at what price?) Should DNC be forced to give away something they were forced to buy initially, had protected, were good stewards of, and paid big bucks for? How much has inflation influenced the worth? Should the Park Service reimburse DNC for their error?

A lot of blame here...but DNC is not the major culprit.
Mountainman who swims with trout
User avatar
jeremiahkim
Topix Regular
Posts: 129
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2017 9:45 am
Experience: Level 4 Explorer
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: $13 million Upgrade To Bridalveil Falls Area

Post by jeremiahkim »

markskor wrote:Should DNC be forced to give away something they were forced to buy initially, had protected, were good stewards of, and paid big bucks for? How much has inflation influenced the worth? Should the Park Service reimburse DNC for their error?

A lot of blame here...but DNC is not the major culprit.
I did not realize this was part of the narrative so thanks for shedding light on it.

Makes complete sense, but unfortunately, as in most things nowadays dealing with commodities and commerce (IMO), it's not a matter of who profits or benefits, but the public at large that loses.
User avatar
SSSdave
Topix Addict
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 11:18 pm
Experience: N/A
Location: Silicon Valley
Contact:

Re: $13 million Upgrade To Bridalveil Falls Area

Post by SSSdave »

Good news and much thanks once again to the Yosemite Conservancy and their supporters.

TMN >>>"...Park officials also plan to cut down about 100 conifer trees that limit views of the falls, as part of a national parks policy that allows trimming and cutting back trees and other vegetation to improve views that have become blocked over the years in places that historically were not as thick with vegetation..."

Also great to see park service officials continuing this strategy at national park view sites. Until a few years ago, across all parks growing blocking trees in front of view points were left alone. Views from Discovery View and Tunnel View became increasingly limited, unaesthetic with the former young alders and at the later young pines.

Within comprehensive planning were options to cut down those trees and the immediate response on the Yosemite info board was numbers of posts condemning any cutting that to this person just read like rigid short sided, small minded, political correctness run amuck. Then I added a lengthy post arguing for that plan that changed the conversation going forward. And park management agreed in the end so now again we have wonderful historical views from those iconic places that everyone can enjoy. Anything growing immediately along our vehicle paved road sides is a special already developed situation so ought be treated differently for the benefit of the full ranges of we peoples from young to old and frail, strong and fit to those bound in wheel chairs, that are able to visit such areas versus areas beyond where leaving nature to itself alone as it naturally changes and evolves, is otherwise wise.
User avatar
John Harper
Topix Expert
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 11:54 am
Experience: N/A

Re: $13 million Upgrade To Bridalveil Falls Area

Post by John Harper »

markskor wrote: When DNC won the bid and susequently took over the Yosemite concessions from Universal, they were required (as part of the 10-year, concession contract then) to purchase these 5 copyrighted names...for somewhere around $20 million. BTW, it is necessary to have these copyrights in place in order to protect the product from non-sanctioned sellers...this is how business is done.

The Park Service then changed the rules for the latest, 10-year, concession bids. Aramark...not requiring these $20 mil copyrighted names to be part of the new concession contract. Should Aramark then pay DNC for them? (Probably, but at what price?) Should DNC be forced to give away something they were forced to buy initially, had protected, were good stewards of, and paid big bucks for? How much has inflation influenced the worth? Should the Park Service reimburse DNC for their error?

A lot of blame here...but DNC is not the major culprit.
Okay, I have a few questions. Who owned the copyrights to these names before DNC purchased? Did the US sell them for short term gain? And if so, why not some kind of "escape" clause in case the original contract was terminated? Does no one think these things through before they auction these "assets" off to highest bidder? Who decided this ridiculous plan was a good idea?

John
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests