That would have been the YARTS bus, which on ly runs up in the afternoon and down in the morning and looks like this:




not the Shuttle, which looks like this, which runs both ways morning and afternoon, and looks like this:

On Jan 28, 2023, at 11:04 AM, steve herr via groups.io <groundhogsteve@...> wrote:

?

The hiker shuttle is done under contract by the concessionaire, but they are not required to do it like the Valley Shuttle.

Last year, the intended to do it, but a lack of drivers forced them to skip it for the season.

I would be inclined to believe it's still up in the air, and we probably won't know until close to the season.

Steve Herr

On Jan 28, 2023, at 23:06, Sam Molinari <sammolinari@...> wrote:

? In my last trip to TM last fall, I spoke with a ranger at the TP entrance regarding 2023 facilities. ?While the campground will be closed for all of 2023 and perhaps in to 2024, the other facilities (store, grill, shuttle and P.O.) were still up in the air last fall. ?He did confirm that there would be parking at the Dog Lake and Wilddrness Center parking would be open though it might be limited by construction activities. ?Also because of limited parking elsewhere in TM those parking areas may see a lot of use so call ahead. ?YARTS should be running so you can take it to the valley from the General store. Enjoy the hike.

On Jan 28, 2023, at 11:04 AM, steve herr via groups.io <groundhogsteve@...> wrote:

?

The hiker shuttle is done under contract by the concessionaire, but they are not required to do it like the Valley Shuttle.

Last year, the intended to do it, but a lack of drivers forced them to skip it for the season.

I would be inclined to believe it's still up in the air, and we probably won't know until close to the season.

Steve Herr

On Jan 28, 2023, at 11:04 AM, steve herr via groups.io <groundhogsteve@...> wrote:

?

The hiker shuttle is done under contract by the concessionaire, but they are not required to do it like the Valley Shuttle.

Last year, the intended to do it, but a lack of drivers forced them to skip it for the season.

I would be inclined to believe it's still up in the air, and we probably won't know until close to the season.

Steve Herr

On Jan 28, 2023, at 9:15 PM, Karina Bezkrovnaia via groups.io <kbezkrovnaia@...> wrote:

?Lange and Peter,

I wish we could do something.

It is wrong to monetize NPS service as those are public lands and “ national park” sjouke serve nation’s interest.

Otherwise is an oxymoron and also really ironic ? ?

Karina Bezkrovnaia

On Jan 28, 2023, at 20:58, Lange Jorstad via groups.io <langejorstad@...> wrote:

?

Yes the "lack of staff" argument really is?beyond belief. I bet you could recruit someone from this group in about two seconds for the opportunity to live in Yosemite all summer and either drive the hiker shuttle or work at the TM lodge - unless of course the compensation essentially made it volunteer work.

Would be nice if NPS spent a little money on a strong commercial contract lawyer to create a clear and binding contract for the concessionaires, and then had the backbone to enforce it. Better yet, could they just figure out how to run it themselves and self-fund using the profit? Obviously, the low bid concessionaire that wins the contract will only ever be interested in squeaking out the highest profit margin possible, which is directly opposed to the objective of good service. Aramark is a multi-billion dollar listed corporation whose primary duty is to its shareholders, which means they will only ever be aiming for the lowest standard of service they can get away with under the contract, and forever trying to lower that bar further.

On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 01:45:01 pm AEDT, Karina Bezkrovnaia via groups.io <kbezkrovnaia@...> wrote:

This is a great info, Peter!

The Master of Yosemite trail signs!

So here is an idea ( however silly). With main JMT group alone 47K we can petition. On behalf NPS. I would fight for our wilderness and I’m sure thousands would to get what we deserve.

Karina Bezkrovnaia

On Jan 28, 2023, at 18:06, Peter Hirst <peter.p.hirst@...> wrote:

?

[Edited Message Follows]

Karina:

A very good question.?? And a very telling? way of putting? it: "who to operate the Park?"? Who indeed?? Very telling, and sad that this is a legitimate way to ask the question.? The answer should be that US Congress made that decision back in 1916.? Legally, historically and unquestionably, the National Park service is charged with running? the Park through,? the Superintendent and her staff.? Period, full stop.? Aramark, the principal concessionaire would love to have you believe they run the Park, and frame every bit of their advertising ? as if not only do they run it but it is theirs to run.? It is not and they should not.? The Park Service is to run it and everything that happens in it is their responsibility.?

As concessionaire, Aramark is a commercial company under contract to run the inherently commercial facilities: restaurants and hotels, primarily, but has time goes on, that franchise creeps into more and more Park operations, most notably park transportation i.e. the "Shuttles".? And herein lies the problem.? Since the shuttles are provided free to the public, they are not a profit center for Aramark,? They are part of the cost of its getting the more lucrative operations, such as the $500 per night Awhahnee, the $50 entrees. the $5.00 cokes and completely bizarre mystery meals served to long lines running past empty serving stations at the Curry Village commissary.? They are providing services not to us but to the Park Service.? The Park Service runs it supposedly in the public interestand Aramark is supposed to provide services better and more reasonably than the Park service could.

But Aramark, like its recent predecessors, is not interested in providing service, it is interested in profits.? Stephen Mather's original idea was that this would work on the regulated monopoly model of public utilities, where in return for a reasonable profit, the company would provide? the highest practicable service for the lowest reasonable price.? And when the Curry and Tressider families, who go back in Yosemite history to about 1897, were running the Curry Camping Company and then the Yosemite Park and Curry Company, they had a vested family interest in stewardship of the trust they held to provide these services.? The beginning of the end came in 1072, with the death of Mary Curry Tressider, last of the family line and the salw of Yosemite Park and Curry Company to a long succession of essentially real estate investors none of whom had any ties or interest with the park other than the purely commercial, i.e. to ptovode the leas amount of service at the highest possible price.

Eventually even the Park and Curry Company ceased to exist, and the concession contract itself was passed to the notorious Delaware North Corporation, which most observers thought could not be outdone in incompetence, greed and exploitation of the Park resources.? We have been shocked, I tell you, shocked to discover that yes, it could get worse.?

In the first week after Aramark took over, its senior executive in charge its Park operations proudly posted a video of himself driving golf balls from his new front lawn out into? Ahwahnee Meadow, joking that heard them bouncing off Half Dome. He was bounced a few days later, but the tone and ethic he set in those first few days was not.? It has been all downhill since.

On Jan 28, 2023, at 20:58, Lange Jorstad via groups.io <langejorstad@...> wrote:

?

Yes the "lack of staff" argument really is?beyond belief. I bet you could recruit someone from this group in about two seconds for the opportunity to live in Yosemite all summer and either drive the hiker shuttle or work at the TM lodge - unless of course the compensation essentially made it volunteer work.

Would be nice if NPS spent a little money on a strong commercial contract lawyer to create a clear and binding contract for the concessionaires, and then had the backbone to enforce it. Better yet, could they just figure out how to run it themselves and self-fund using the profit? Obviously, the low bid concessionaire that wins the contract will only ever be interested in squeaking out the highest profit margin possible, which is directly opposed to the objective of good service. Aramark is a multi-billion dollar listed corporation whose primary duty is to its shareholders, which means they will only ever be aiming for the lowest standard of service they can get away with under the contract, and forever trying to lower that bar further.

On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 01:45:01 pm AEDT, Karina Bezkrovnaia via groups.io <kbezkrovnaia@...> wrote:

This is a great info, Peter!

The Master of Yosemite trail signs!

So here is an idea ( however silly). With main JMT group alone 47K we can petition. On behalf NPS. I would fight for our wilderness and I’m sure thousands would to get what we deserve.

Karina Bezkrovnaia

On Jan 28, 2023, at 18:06, Peter Hirst <peter.p.hirst@...> wrote:

?

[Edited Message Follows]

Karina:

A very good question.?? And a very telling? way of putting? it: "who to operate the Park?"? Who indeed?? Very telling, and sad that this is a legitimate way to ask the question.? The answer should be that US Congress made that decision back in 1916.? Legally, historically and unquestionably, the National Park service is charged with running? the Park through,? the Superintendent and her staff.? Period, full stop.? Aramark, the principal concessionaire would love to have you believe they run the Park, and frame every bit of their advertising ? as if not only do they run it but it is theirs to run.? It is not and they should not.? The Park Service is to run it and everything that happens in it is their responsibility.?

As concessionaire, Aramark is a commercial company under contract to run the inherently commercial facilities: restaurants and hotels, primarily, but has time goes on, that franchise creeps into more and more Park operations, most notably park transportation i.e. the "Shuttles".? And herein lies the problem.? Since the shuttles are provided free to the public, they are not a profit center for Aramark,? They are part of the cost of its getting the more lucrative operations, such as the $500 per night Awhahnee, the $50 entrees. the $5.00 cokes and completely bizarre mystery meals served to long lines running past empty serving stations at the Curry Village commissary.? They are providing services not to us but to the Park Service.? The Park Service runs it supposedly in the public interestand Aramark is supposed to provide services better and more reasonably than the Park service could.

But Aramark, like its recent predecessors, is not interested in providing service, it is interested in profits.? Stephen Mather's original idea was that this would work on the regulated monopoly model of public utilities, where in return for a reasonable profit, the company would provide? the highest practicable service for the lowest reasonable price.? And when the Curry and Tressider families, who go back in Yosemite history to about 1897, were running the Curry Camping Company and then the Yosemite Park and Curry Company, they had a vested family interest in stewardship of the trust they held to provide these services.? The beginning of the end came in 1072, with the death of Mary Curry Tressider, last of the family line and the salw of Yosemite Park and Curry Company to a long succession of essentially real estate investors none of whom had any ties or interest with the park other than the purely commercial, i.e. to ptovode the leas amount of service at the highest possible price.

Eventually even the Park and Curry Company ceased to exist, and the concession contract itself was passed to the notorious Delaware North Corporation, which most observers thought could not be outdone in incompetence, greed and exploitation of the Park resources.? We have been shocked, I tell you, shocked to discover that yes, it could get worse.?

In the first week after Aramark took over, its senior executive in charge its Park operations proudly posted a video of himself driving golf balls from his new front lawn out into? Ahwahnee Meadow, joking that heard them bouncing off Half Dome. He was bounced a few days later, but the tone and ethic he set in those first few days was not.? It has been all downhill since.

On Jan 28, 2023, at 18:06, Peter Hirst <peter.p.hirst@...> wrote:

?

[Edited Message Follows]

Karina:

A very good question.?? And a very telling? way of putting? it: "who to operate the Park?"? Who indeed?? Very telling, and sad that this is a legitimate way to ask the question.? The answer should be that US Congress made that decision back in 1916.? Legally, historically and unquestionably, the National Park service is charged with running? the Park through,? the Superintendent and her staff.? Period, full stop.? Aramark, the principal concessionaire would love to have you believe they run the Park, and frame every bit of their advertising ? as if not only do they run it but it is theirs to run.? It is not and they should not.? The Park Service is to run it and everything that happens in it is their responsibility.?

As concessionaire, Aramark is a commercial company under contract to run the inherently commercial facilities: restaurants and hotels, primarily, but has time goes on, that franchise creeps into more and more Park operations, most notably park transportation i.e. the "Shuttles".? And herein lies the problem.? Since the shuttles are provided free to the public, they are not a profit center for Aramark,? They are part of the cost of its getting the more lucrative operations, such as the $500 per night Awhahnee, the $50 entrees. the $5.00 cokes and completely bizarre mystery meals served to long lines running past empty serving stations at the Curry Village commissary.? They are providing services not to us but to the Park Service.? The Park Service runs it supposedly in the public interestand Aramark is supposed to provide services better and more reasonably than the Park service could.

But Aramark, like its recent predecessors, is not interested in providing service, it is interested in profits.? Stephen Mather's original idea was that this would work on the regulated monopoly model of public utilities, where in return for a reasonable profit, the company would provide? the highest practicable service for the lowest reasonable price.? And when the Curry and Tressider families, who go back in Yosemite history to about 1897, were running the Curry Camping Company and then the Yosemite Park and Curry Company, they had a vested family interest in stewardship of the trust they held to provide these services.? The beginning of the end came in 1072, with the death of Mary Curry Tressider, last of the family line and the salw of Yosemite Park and Curry Company to a long succession of essentially real estate investors none of whom had any ties or interest with the park other than the purely commercial, i.e. to ptovode the leas amount of service at the highest possible price.

Eventually even the Park and Curry Company ceased to exist, and the concession contract itself was passed to the notorious Delaware North Corporation, which most observers thought could not be outdone in incompetence, greed and exploitation of the Park resources.? We have been shocked, I tell you, shocked to discover that yes, it could get worse.?

In the first week after Aramark took over, its senior executive in charge its Park operations proudly posted a video of himself driving golf balls from his new front lawn out into? Ahwahnee Meadow, joking that heard them bouncing off Half Dome. He was bounced a few days later, but the tone and ethic he set in those first few days was not.? It has been all downhill since.

On Jan 28, 2023, at 18:06, Peter Hirst <peter.p.hirst@...> wrote:

?

[Edited Message Follows]

Karina:

A very good question.?? And a very telling? way of putting? it: "who to operate the Park?"? Who indeed?? Very telling, and sad that this is a legitimate way to ask the question.? The answer should be that US Congress made that decision back in 1916.? Legally, historically and unquestionably, the National Park service is charged with running? the Park through,? the Superintendent and her staff.? Period, full stop.? Aramark, the principal concessionaire would love to have you believe they run the Park, and frame every bit of their advertising ? as if not only do they run it but it is theirs to run.? It is not and they should not.? The Park Service is to run it and everything that happens in it is their responsibility.?

As concessionaire, Aramark is a commercial company under contract to run the inherently commercial facilities: restaurants and hotels, primarily, but has time goes on, that franchise creeps into more and more Park operations, most notably park transportation i.e. the "Shuttles".? And herein lies the problem.? Since the shuttles are provided free to the public, they are not a profit center for Aramark,? They are part of the cost of its getting the more lucrative operations, such as the $500 per night Awhahnee, the $50 entrees. the $5.00 cokes and completely bizarre mystery meals served to long lines running past empty serving stations at the Curry Village commissary.? They are providing services not to us but to the Park Service.? The Park Service runs it supposedly in the public interestand Aramark is supposed to provide services better and more reasonably than the Park service could.

But Aramark, like its recent predecessors, is not interested in providing service, it is interested in profits.? Stephen Mather's original idea was that this would work on the regulated monopoly model of public utilities, where in return for a reasonable profit, the company would provide? the highest practicable service for the lowest reasonable price.? And when the Curry and Tressider families, who go back in Yosemite history to about 1897, were running the Curry Camping Company and then the Yosemite Park and Curry Company, they had a vested family interest in stewardship of the trust they held to provide these services.? The beginning of the end came in 1072, with the death of Mary Curry Tressider, last of the family line and the salw of Yosemite Park and Curry Company to a long succession of essentially real estate investors none of whom had any ties or interest with the park other than the purely commercial, i.e. to ptovode the leas amount of service at the highest possible price.

Eventually even the Park and Curry Company ceased to exist, and the concession contract itself was passed to the notorious Delaware North Corporation, which most observers thought could not be outdone in incompetence, greed and exploitation of the Park resources.? We have been shocked, I tell you, shocked to discover that yes, it could get worse.?

In the first week after Aramark took over, its senior executive in charge its Park operations proudly posted a video of himself driving golf balls from his new front lawn out into? Ahwahnee Meadow, joking that heard them bouncing off Half Dome. He was bounced a few days later, but the tone and ethic he set in those first few days was not.? It has been all downhill since.

Hello hikers,

?

Second snow sensor report of the season. January has been a month of contrasts: two weeks of unbelievable snow, followed by two weeks of not much. A January lull is not unusual in the Sierra, and the same pattern can be seen in some of the charts. The snowpack is still similar to 2017 – outpacing in some locations, falling behind in others, but generally pretty close despite a couple weeks of no snow. A quick scan of forecasts for the next week indicates low storm activity – possibly a little snow this Sunday, but nothing substantial going into Feb. So, we wait and see. As always in the Sierra, don’t count your chickens before they hatch.

?

Here’s the standard guidance for reading these charts:

?

1)????? The Sensor Maps show the snow sensor locations (three letter acronyms) relative to the JMT (red line). These correspond to the titles of the charts.?

2)????? The charts are in “snow water equivalents” (SWE). That is the weight of the snow on the sensor, which is equivalent to the water contained in the snow. The actual thickness of the snowpack depends on the density of the snow: cold, fluffy powder results in a thicker snowpack vs warmer, denser Sierra Cement. As a rule of thumb, multiply the SWE by 3 in winter and 2 in spring to get the snowpack thickness.?

3)????? The charts compare SWE data from 2015 (historical min), and select years from 2017-2023. Missing data on the charts means that it was missing in the CDEC database, which generally means the sensor wasn’t operating at the time (or the frequency of data reporting changed).?

4)????? The scales on the vertical axes (SWE) are not all the same! They are scaled to the data. Hence, the Mammoth Pass (MHP) chart represent about twice as much snow as the Crabtree Meadow (CBT) chart.?

5)????? These snow sensors are used by the state to estimate snowmelt runoff volumes for water supply management purposes and won’t necessarily indicate snow-on-trail conditions. But they are useful for relative comparisons to other years and should give a general idea of how this year will stack up to previous years.

?

?

On Jan 28, 2023, at 14:01, Peter Hirst <peter.p.hirst@...> wrote:

?

I June of last year I met hikers being dropped at the Dog Lake/JMT trailhead in Lyell Canyon.? I don't know when it was discontinued, but they had enough drivers in June.

Doesn't YARTS serve as the "hiker bus" in the absence of the shuttle?? Totally inadequate schedule, but at least provides some service, I believe.? I have used it to get from the Va;;ey to Tuolumne conveniently when the Tuolumne Backpackers camp was open, but not so much from the Valley BP camp for a decent start, but enough time to get that first 4 miles on day one.

I think something ought to be said and more widely understood about what the concessionaire is required to do, what they have excused themselves from doing, and why.? If indeed they are not required to provide the hiker shuttle, do we think they are going to do it out of the goodness of their corporate heart?? This, as with so many other aspects of the concessionaire's contract performance, is a? complete failure on the part of the Park Service to establish adequate contract requirements and hold Aramark to their obligations.? To accept that Aramark does not provide the services it has contracted for -adequate shuttles, operation of the High Sierra Camps and much more - because they can't get the staff is absolutely ludicrous and I believe an outright lie.? Not having enough drivers, or hotel staff or whatever, means one thing only: that they are not willing to pay an adequate wage.? Meaning that Aramark is not making enough profit on certain of its enterprises, and just decides not to provide them.?

Well, guess what; they are required by their contract to provide those services, and they are not guaranteed to make a profit on them.. that's what a contract is: it is an allocation of the economic risks.? Aramark treats their concession as a license to operate what makes them enough profit to satisfy them and the hell with whatever isn't as creamy for them.? and the Pakr service has been continually bullied by them and their ilk for fifty years, ever since the Park and Curry Company was first sold to commercial companies with no ties and no interest at all in what the Park is about, other than another profit center.? The premier cash cow, BTW, in the entire National Park System.?

So we get the story that Tuolumne Meadows Lodge or the shuttle can't be operated because they can't get staff.? Oh yeah?? You can get staff to make beds at the Awhahnee, and serve $60 steaks at the Mountain Room, and make $30 pizzas at Curry village so you can Stand in line for an hour or so, but you can't get anyone to work and live in Tuolumne Meadows for the summer?? To quote one Valley restaurant worker "Service?? Are you kidding?? These people run prisons?"? And she was not speaking metaphorically.

Sorry, but when I hear it offered and accepted that "a lack of drivers forced them to skip it for the season" I just gag.

I June of last year I met hikers being dropped at the Dog Lake/JMT trailhead in Lyell Canyon.? I don't know when it was discontinued, but they had enough drivers in June.

Doesn't YARTS serve as the "hiker bus" in the absence of the shuttle?? Totally inadequate schedule, but at least provides some service, I believe.? I have used it to get from the Va;;ey to Tuolumne conveniently when the Tuolumne Backpackers camp was open, but not so much from the Valley BP camp for a decent start, but enough time to get that first 4 miles on day one.

I think something ought to be said and more widely understood about what the concessionaire is required to do, what they have excused themselves from doing, and why.? If indeed they are not required to provide the hiker shuttle, do we think they are going to do it out of the goodness of their corporate heart?? This, as with so many other aspects of the concessionaire's contract performance, is a? complete failure on the part of the Park Service to establish adequate contract requirements and hold Aramark to their obligations.? To accept that Aramark does not provide the services it has contracted for -adequate shuttles, operation of the High Sierra Camps and much more - because they can't get the staff is absolutely ludicrous and I believe an outright lie.? Not having enough drivers, or hotel staff or whatever, means one thing only: that they are not willing to pay an adequate wage.? Meaning that Aramark is not making enough profit on certain of its enterprises, and just decides not to provide them.?

Well, guess what; they are required by their contract to provide those services, and they are not guaranteed to make a profit on them.. that's what a contract is: it is an allocation of the economic risks.? Aramark treats their concession as a license to operate what makes them enough profit to satisfy them and the hell with whatever isn't as creamy for them.? and the Pakr service has been continually bullied by them and their ilk for fifty years, ever since the Park and Curry Company was first sold to commercial companies with no ties and no interest at all in what the Park is about, other than another profit center.? The premier cash cow, BTW, in the entire National Park System.?

So we get the story that Tuolumne Meadows Lodge or the shuttle can't be operated because they can't get staff.? Oh yeah?? You can get staff to make beds at the Awhahnee, and serve $60 steaks at the Mountain Room, and make $30 pizzas at Curry village so you can Stand in line for an hour or so, but you can't get anyone to work and live in Tuolumne Meadows for the summer?? To quote one Valley restaurant worker "Service?? Are you kidding?? These people run prisons?"? And she was not speaking metaphorically.

Sorry, but when I hear it offered and accepted that "a lack of drivers forced them to skip it for the season" I just gag.

On Jan 28, 2023, at 09:04, steve herr via groups.io <groundhogsteve@...> wrote:

?

The hiker shuttle is done under contract by the concessionaire, but they are not required to do it like the Valley Shuttle.

Last year, the intended to do it, but a lack of drivers forced them to skip it for the season.

I would be inclined to believe it's still up in the air, and we probably won't know until close to the season.

Steve Herr