This year, the National Park Service (NPS) is celebrating its centennial, and there are numerous plans and scheduled activities to encourage more Americans to discover and explore their national parks. But one future plan is gaining even more attention: the NPS would like to bring high-speed Internet service to every national park in the U.S. by 2018.
While that sounds progressive and relevant for today’s plugged-in park visitor, there may be a dark side to such an offering. The park service is currently in dire need of other—perhaps more critical—improvements, and the money spent on bringing Internet service to the parks might be better spent elsewhere: a backlog of maintenance projects runs into the billions of dollars, mostly for infrastructure.
Will having high-speed Internet service draw more people into the parks if the roads and historic buildings continue to fall into major disrepair and begin crumbling around us as we check our smartphones?
Connecting with millennials
To engage new generations of people who will care about our national parks, the service does need to adapt with the times. Millennials (usually defined as those whose birth years range from the early 1980s to the early 2000s) connect primarily through technology and having Internet service in the parks would provide them with more content about the landmarks, environment and monuments via a delivery system that they prefer. Since part of the National Park Service’s mission is to provide “enjoyment, education and inspiration [for] this and future generations,” equipping all national parks with high-speed Internet makes sense.
According to a December 23, 2015, article in the Jackson Hole News & Guide, Grand Teton National Park is developing an application that would provide maps and basic information on particular areas by accessing the GPS on visitors’ phones. For example, you might open the app and see photos of what the location you’re standing in looked like 100 years ago. Yellowstone National Park has a “Geyser App” that notifies visitors of eruption times in the Upper Geyser Basin.
While the NPS says that the main purpose of the high-speed Internet service will be to provide park visitors with easier access to park-specific information, they do admit it will also appeal to those who want to meet their professional obligations while in the parks. That could mean that more people will be working in some of our most beautiful landscapes.
I don’t mean to suggest, however, that you’ll see and hear people talking and doing business on their phones everywhere in the national parks. The NPS is not proposing to wire the backcountry. Internet access would be concentrated in the already developed parts of the parks. Currently, there aren’t any plans to bring high-speed Internet to the remote areas. But given what we know about the quick pace of technology, how far away can that possibility really be?
Tackling a backlog
While this new service has a lot of promise for bringing people into the parks, what condition will those parks be in when they get there?
The picture isn’t rosy. The NPS reports that its total deferred maintenance as of September 30, 2014, was $11.5 billion dollars. And some of our best-known, most cherished parks are suffering the most. In Yosemite, the maintenance backlog includes more than $550 million, $100 million of which is considered critical. Roughly $19 million is needed to upgrade an aging sewer system to prevent spills, such as the one 15 years ago that leaked thousands of gallons of raw sewage into the Merced River. In Grand Canyon National Park, more than $100 million is needed to repair the water system and $44 million to fix the trail network. Yellowstone National Park needs $633 million in repairs.
According to an op-ed piece by Reed Watson and Scott Wilson in The New York Times last June, included in the backlog is:
- $5.6 billion for park roads,
- $4.5 billion for historic structures,
- $1.8 billion for buildings,
- $473 million for trails,
- $255 million for wastewater systems and
- $62 million for campgrounds.
In addition, in 2013 the National Park Service estimated that it would need to spend $700 million per year just to prevent deferred maintenance from rising above the current $11.5 billion backlog.
It seems that it would be the opportune time, in this National Park Service centennial year, especially, as more Americans are inspired and motivated to check out their national parks, to make sure that our parks’ trails, roads and buildings can accommodate the people—young and old—we hope will come and learn to love these lands as much as we do.
While I’m not sure that repairs versus high-speed Internet availability is an either/or choice, I do know that I wouldn’t pick the latter. Would you?
Here’s to finding your true places and natural habitats,
Candy
I agree with Misa to some extent but also with Candice. I am a seasonal law enforcement ranger in the national Park service. I am currently looking for permanent positions but won’t even consider a park that doesn’t have access to decent Internet. I have a wife who works from home and children. I think it is easy for those of you who don’t work in the parks to cry foul when it doesn’t affect your daily life. On the other hand, I think that a compromise can be found in that park visitors don’t really need access to enjoy their visit. So perhaps the park should put that money toward their employees and not worry too much about visitors. Those visitors are clearly more interested in keeping the parks nice and in good repair. You could probably save a lot of money by simply providing Internet to Park housing and not worry about running lines to the campgrounds in public areas. Put the money that you save from that towards repairs. Just my opinion but providing better services to employees would be huge for retention.
I understand this is an old article, and the comments are all from almost 2 years ago. I stopped by to tell you that its not all about the tourists. There are those of us who live and work at these national parks that would like to skype with our family members that we have not seen in years. Relax and watch movies online during off season. The internet at the national park is absolutely atrocious, and while you all complain about this as unnecessary, how many of you enjoy speeds above 256Kbps at your homes? There are valid solutions to bringing in high speed internet with extremely little impact to the environment (running the lines next to the railway for instance). So please, dont assume this is all for the tourists, it is not. This is also for those many of us that live and work at the national parks to provide you all with an amazing experience.
Hi, Misa,
In the article is the statement that “the main purpose of the high-speed Internet service will be to provide park visitors with easier access to park-specific information, [and] they do admit it will also appeal to those who want to meet their professional obligations while in the parks. That could mean that more people will be working in some of our most beautiful landscapes.
“I don’t mean to suggest, however, that you’ll see and hear people talking and doing business on their phones everywhere in the national parks. The NPS is not proposing to wire the backcountry. Internet access would be concentrated in the already developed parts of the parks.”
So, it is not just an assumption that the high-speed Internet service will be all about the tourists—it is that the main purpose will be to provide park visitors with easy access to park information, according to the NPS. That Is a good thing.
The dilemma, however, is that if the trails and roads and the rest of the infrastructure in the park is so woefully in need, none of us may have access to the park soon, and then the question of providing Internet service there becomes moot.
Thanks for you comment and for joining in the conversation!
—C.G.A.
Maybe they should crowdfund it?
Wait … what? Aren’t you going to a park precisely to ESCAPE modern life and 24/7 access?!
Please tell me this isn’t true! There is absolutely no reason I can think of to do this. I spend a lot of time in National Parks, and there are things that are much more important than Internet access.
Those NPS budget-makers always get the right priorities… /sarc
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb. Let’s get all the other stuff that needs done in our crumbling parks before inviting in such a debilitating intrusion.
Much rather have all the deferred maintenance done and adequate staff.
Just another day at the “home office” ….. 😉
There goes the innocence of pristine lands.
I can see the benefits and also believe it is not necessary. As a tour guide to Mt. Rainier National Park, I find most of my guests assume it won’t be available and look forward to being un-plugged. Including the younger folks 🙂
A good conversation for sure ~ thanks for sharing Candice
Thank you, Diann. Nice to get your perspective as a national park guide! —C.G.A.
“do not want!”
“Technology+nature=insensitive + Unnatural !! Unecessary too..”
I personally find it sad people can no longer go without the internet. Put it away and enjoy nature and the beauty all around you.