Non-European visitors starting next year, will pay 45 percent higher ticket prices to visit the Louvre.

That’s a $37 ticket.

The reason for the surge in pricing?

It is to reduce congestion and boost funding for desperately needed maintenance.

No organization supporting art in France, at least so far, has publicly painted the admission hike as running the risk of turning the Louvre into “nothing more than a playground for the super-rich.”

A little close to home, the National Park Service (NPS) has announced a $100 hike for foreign admission to the 10 busiest parks that includes Yosemite.

The Sierra Club’s Deputy Director of the organization’s Outdoor for All campaign Jerry Seavo James was quoted by backpacker.com as saying the move has the potential of making Yosemite et al as “nothing more than playgrounds for the super-rich.”

As a bit of context, James noted the Trump Administration has pushed for drastic cuts to National Park Service funding.

The original $900 million cut the administration sought was whittled down to $230 million in the budget version Congress finally passed.

The $100 upcharge for foreign visitors is projected to raise $55 million. If that happens, it clearly is not enough to cover the cutback.

But the real issues here are fiscal responsibility and stewardship.

And before that is explored, the record needs to be set straight.

It is a ridiculously low amount that one pays for entrance to Yosemite National Park.

The seven-day pass is $35 per private vehicle.

Assume there are four people in the vehicle, that is $8.75 per person for seven-day access.

On a day-to-day basis, that translates into a $1.25 a person at Yosemite on a daily basis compared to $37 for the Louvre.

Domestically, admission for two days for a family of four to Disneyland in Anaheim runs between $1,400 and $1,700. That’s light years away from $35 a week.

Countrywide, there are more than 100 of the 400 plus national parks that charge admission fees.

The fees last year generated $349 million for what was the $2.8 billion budget for the National Park Service.

Back during Trump’s first rodeo at the White House, the then Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke suggested doubling entrance fees to help chip away at a backlog of $23.8 billion in pressing deferred maintenance needs throughout the park system.

The situation was created because Congress has historically seen funding for the NPS as one of its lowest priorities when it comes to addressing specific needs.

Judging by the backlash Zinke’s proposal generated, you’d have thought the Secretary suggested converting Yosemite Valley into a nuclear waste dump.

The idea of doubling of the park entrance fees was dropped.

Finally in 2020, Congress stepped up and committed $1.9 billion annually for five years to help tackle the NPS maintenance backlog.

The Great American Outdoors Act will only cover a little more than a third of what needs to be done.

There is a proposal floating around in Congress to try and cover the rest of the tab — keep in mind as the years go by infrastructure continues to age and fail — via the so-called America the Beautiful Act.

The measure proposes spending an additional $2 billion annually for eight years when the Great American Outdoors Act expires.

No one is saying the admission fees have to cover operating and maintenance costs given they can’t.

But it would be nice if the NPS had a source of non-Congressional funding so they can avoid getting into a deep deferred maintenance hole going forward.

That brings us back to stewardship, which is supposedly right up the Sierra Club’s alley.

Why not embrace a fee hike — at least in the case of Yosemite — for specific steps to reduce air pollution, congestion, and accelerated infrastructure deterioration?

Studies have shown that more than 90 percent of the park’s 3.9 million visitors never venture outside the seven square miles of Yosemite Valley in the 1,087 square-mile national park.

More than a decade ago, recommendations were made to build massive parking lots between jumping off points to Yosemite along Highway 99.

As such, they could go as far away as Manteca, Merced, and Fresno.

A similar parking lot near Lee Vining on Highway 395 could be used for a bus system through the Tioga Pass entrance.

A robust electric bus system could ferry day use visitors to and from the valley.

Once in the valley, electric open trams could be used to reach popular out-of-valley locations such as Glacier Point and the Wawona sequoia grove.

Hikers/backpackers/campers wanting to access points off the Tioga Road — what Highway 120 turns into when the route goes through Yosemite National Park — such as Tuolumne Meadows could pay steep charges to be able to drive vehicles to campsites or trailheads.

The same could be true of campers in the valley, unless, of course, the buses could carry the gear they haul in.

The bottom line is less congestion not only reduces ongoing maintenance costs but it would also enhance the experience while protecting the park.

Keep in mind, the last stats posted on the Yosemite site of the NPS shows that 25 percent of the 3.9 million people that visit the park in a given year are from foreign countries.

Of the remaining 75 percent from the United States, 62 percent are from California.

The NPS countrywide has more than 75,000 structures, roadways, trails, parking lots and such to maintain. That includes 5,500 miles of roadways, 17,000 miles of trails, and 25,000 buildings.

The deferred maintenance and repair needs in Yosemite is placed at $1.4 billion on top of annual routine maintenance costs of $38 million.

There are 25 Yosemite projects in the current funding stream of the Great American Outdoors Act with a collective price of $118.4 million.

They range from $81.3 million to replace the Tuolumne Meadows wastewater treatment plant and $5 million to rehabilitate the Big Flat Oak Road to $490,000 to rehabilitate Yosemite Falls Trail from Columbus Rock to the top and $363,000 to replace the roll up doors on the El Portal Maintenance Shop mechanic bays.

A bigger worry than alluding to Yosemite turning into an exclusive playground for the “One Percent” should be the continued deterioration of national parks.

Especially since three-quarters of the NPS parks have no admission charge at all.