Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DEC to Temporarily Relocate Trailheads for Cascade, Porter and Pitchoff (West)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I read the press release little more carefully.

    Beginning at dusk on Thursday, October 5, through dusk on Monday, October 9, the pull-offs along State Route 73 near the current trailhead will be closed to parking, and roadside parking in the area will be prohibited.

    I'm now reading this to mean that there will be a physical barrier to parking at the 4 pull-offs on your map and that ticketing/towing refers to roadside parking. If this is correct it will make potential dropoff/pickup more difficult and dangerous.

    Comment


    • #17
      I do not understand the need for dropoff/pickup. If the purpose is to go hiking, why complicate the matters to shorten the route. I get that some people think the woods are boring and only the top of the mountain view has any value to be seen, but that still leaves me wondering why they want to hike in the first place. There are plenty of pull off the road views. If the goal is to "hiked up the mointain" then getting a ride halfway there also doesnt make sense to me. I suppose my confusion is why I am not a peak bagger and enjoy the quiet woods with "no view".
      "There's a whisper on the night-wind, there's a star agleam to guide us, And the Wild is calling, calling . . . let us go." -from "The Call of the Wild" by Robert Service

      My trail journal: DuctTape's Journal

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by DuctTape View Post
        I do not understand the need for dropoff/pickup.
        In general or specifically for Cascade's temporary reroute?

        In this specific case, some people may be unable to complete a hiking route that will become nearly twice as long. So one can envision Mom dropping off Dad and the kids by the roadside, head off to park at the ski center, and meet them later where the two trails meet.

        In general, it's done to skip some, less than interesting, portion of the hiking route. Typically it's a section of highway or county road.

        I've hiked the extra 6 miles (3 in, 3 out) of Coreys Road when closed to cars in winter. That's 6 miles of road-walking on top of the 16 miles for a tour of the Seward Range. It's not a particularly interesting 6 miles and, when the road is open in other seasons, I take the opportunity to drive it.

        Similarly, when the Elk Lake Parking Area is full, overflow parking is 1.8 miles south of it at Clear Pond. I've dropped people off at Elk Lake, parked at Clear Pond, then hiked/jogged back to Elk Lake. I've also walked the road in both directions. It's a pleasant walk but hardly the highlight of a trip to the Dix Range.

        I've walked a few miles of highway, now and then, to create a loop-trip but I can't claim it was the best part of the day ... having high-speed traffic zoom past me. As a hiker, that's not the experience I seek.

        If the purpose is to go hiking, why complicate the matters to shorten the route.
        Probably because it's a portion they wish to avoid. Kind of like how some paddlers try to avoid routes with portages.

        ... that still leaves me wondering why they want to hike in the first place. There are plenty of pull off the road views.
        Probably because a "road view" isn't equivalent to a "summit view". No more than paddling in Cascade Lakes is the same as paddling in a remote pond.

        I suppose my confusion is why I am not a peak bagger and enjoy the quiet woods with "no view".
        Fortunately for us all, the Adirondack Park offers something for everyone.
        Looking for views!

        Comment


        • #19
          This makes me happy. That parking area was always a nightmare to either park in or drive by.
          #9404
          http://edthesmokebeard.com/

          Comment


          • #20
            As far as we know, the "nightmare" will continue outside of Columbus Day w/e.

            Very interested to learn what they do long term. This weekend may be a "proof of concept" for the permanent plan they are considering.

            Comment


            • #21
              New trail to Cascade Mountain cuts through private land​


              Here's my approximation of the reroute crossing through Corwin and Steckler's properties.




              When Pete Nelson published a proposal to relocate Cascade's trailhead to the Mount Van Hoevenberg Ski Center, I had mentioned the need to get easement rights from private landowners. Otherwise, to remain on state land, the new trail would have to traverse Mount Van Hoevenberg's western shoulder thereby adding significant ascent/descent to the route.

              They chose to avoid the shoulder, and follow along existing XC trails crossing private land ... but announced it before securing easement permission from the landowners. Oops!

              FWIW, the article indicates hikers can continue to use the existing trailhead on route 73 (on Columbus Day weekend), only they cannot park there. This implies drop-offs will be permitted.
              Looking for views!

              Comment


              • #22
                And the circus continues...

                Everything I see indicates that this re-route was not planned, but was instituted on an emergency basis via "orders from on high." EVERYONE who is in any way connected to Van Ho knows about the landowners' concerns on that section of trail. It's well known, common knowledge. It has been well known for over a year. For DEC to say: “As the announcement was made, DEC staff learned of landowner concerns..." is completely ridiculous and obviously a false statement.

                I hope no one gets hurt this weekend.

                >Forcing 100% of the Pitchoff hikers (families with small children) to cross the highway.

                >Now apparently "allowing drop-offs" where the entire shoulder is filled with orange barrels (I drove by last night) and there is NO PLACE to safely drop anyone off.

                >More than likely driving parking to the picnic area or the pullouts further east (these are still closer than Van Ho), resulting in crowds walking the highway.

                These are recipes for increased risk of accidents. Fingers are crossed that we get through this mess OK.

                Comment


                • #23
                  I walked the route yesterday with a wheel and came out only 0.1 mi. longer than the posted 4.3 mi., so no problem there. As for TB's map, there is now a new piece of trail that has been cut just off of Steckler's property. The route chosen leaving the stadium has some extra climb and descent, but it minimizes the distance on Corwin property.

                  I agree with TCD that this was not well-planned, although the markings on the route are at least more than adequate, so no one should get lost this weekend. As of 11 AM this morning, there were about 20 cars at the Van Hoevenberg parking lot with plenty of signs plus two SCA interns and a 46-R volunteer to help explain the situation. However, once the first person realizes they can park on the highway within 1/4 mile of the trailhead, that will quickly become the preferred parking area.. Consequently, there will be many walking greater distances along the highway. As for the approach to Pitchoff, that is a 2.6 mile walk just to get to the usual trailhead, meaning the very dangerous Pitchoff East TH will be jammed this weekend. And that's not to mention all the additional pressure that will be put on the Giant, Hurricane, and AMR parking areas plus the Marcy Field shuttle.

                  I certainly get it that some action had to be taken to address hiker parking, but this effort has required a great deal of work by several different agencies - and all for a temporary three-day fix.
                  Every time that wheel turns round, bound to measure just a little more ground.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by TCD View Post
                    And the circus continues...

                    Everything I see indicates that this re-route was not planned, but was instituted on an emergency basis via "orders from on high." EVERYONE who is in any way connected to Van Ho knows about the landowners' concerns on that section of trail. It's well known, common knowledge. It has been well known for over a year. For DEC to say: “As the announcement was made, DEC staff learned of landowner concerns..." is completely ridiculous and obviously a false statement.

                    I hope no one gets hurt this weekend.

                    >Forcing 100% of the Pitchoff hikers (families with small children) to cross the highway.

                    >Now apparently "allowing drop-offs" where the entire shoulder is filled with orange barrels (I drove by last night) and there is NO PLACE to safely drop anyone off.

                    >More than likely driving parking to the picnic area or the pullouts further east (these are still closer than Van Ho), resulting in crowds walking the highway.

                    These are recipes for increased risk of accidents. Fingers are crossed that we get through this mess OK.
                    Hiker's traditionally using the Cascade/Pitchoff pullouts still cross the road for Pitchoff. Or are you saying that Pitchoff hikers usually park on the north shoulder?

                    EDIT: OK, I see now that the easternmost pullout is on the north side of the road.

                    Thread on the other forum demonstrated that the DEC Pitchoff reroute map shows hikers using cross country trails and reaching 73 at or east of the westernmost pullout.

                    So the plan described in the press release of using the private road and reaching 73 west of the westernmost pullout is likely inaccurate. This would have resulted in a longer and more dangerous road walk (and liability concerns I would imagine). A walk from a Cascade pullout behind a barrier, along and then across the road, seems to match what would traditionally be required of a Pitchoff hiker.

                    It's not clear whether allowing drop-offs is DEC policy or article speculation. If allowing drop-offs I think you would not block the main Cascade pullout with orange barrels. Forcing drop-offs to use the shoulder seems dangerous. There is a quote from DEC regarding the future possibility of shuttles so it seems that the author did communicate with them.

                    Agreed that the No Parking zone should extend to and include the area between the lakes.
                    Last edited by AvalanchePass; 10-06-2017, 02:42 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by tgoodwin View Post
                      I walked the route yesterday with a wheel ...
                      So cars travelling east on 73 arrive at the pullouts and find them blocked by orange barrels. Then they find signage directing them to Van Hoevenberg and need to turn around without the use of a pullout?

                      Or is there signage as you pass Van Hoevenberg? Not that cars on their way to Cascade would be paying attention as they pass Van Hoevenberg ...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        @AvalanchePass

                        You bring up an interesting point. Eastbound drivers who pass the Ski Center will have a significant detour to complete before they can swing around for a second pass.

                        Eastbound drivers won't get a practical chance to turn around until they get to the parking pull-off for Pitchoff Chimney Cliff (eastern end of the pass).

                        I added "practical" because there's also the road to the picnic area between the lakes. However, that one flashes by in a blink of an eye; you have to know of its existence, and slow to a safe speed, to get any chance of safely negotiating the entrance.

                        Maybe the showery weather will discourage Cascade-bound hikers.
                        Looking for views!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Would it be possible to build a parking lot in the area around the current sign-in booth?
                          The best, the most successful adventurer, is the one having the most fun.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            The parcel of land lying immediately west of the Cascade trail-head is owned by the state and zoned Intensive Use (dark green in map below). The westernmost Cascade parking area lies on the northern border of this property.

                            My guess is the state could construct a parking area there. However, I can see how that might not sit well with everyone given that there's plenty of existing parking at the Ski Center (and other facilities like toilets). Nevertheless, it would provide access to both trailheads, avoid all private land, and the added walking distance would be negligible. However, hikers bound for Pitchoff would be obliged to cross the highway (although that's the same situation for Ampersand Mountain).


                            Looking for views!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Trail Boss View Post
                              However, I can see how that might not sit well with everyone given that there's plenty of existing parking at the Ski Center (and other facilities like toilets).
                              Similar to what I said in the other forum.

                              Presumably replacing the Cascade Loop with a parking lot needs buy in from the Olympic Regional Development Authority. I assume ORDA wants hikers closer to their paid attractions as they attempt to monetize their facility over the summer.

                              Difficult to make the case for a parking lot when everything you need is less than 2 miles away ...

                              So is the current plan and new 0.4 mile trail intended to deal with a couple of weekends a year? Or is it the precursor to a permanent solution? My gut says the latter.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Like Tony did, I went there today to see how things are going. (Plus, I had to run to the supermarket in LP so I had another reason to drive through.) Observations:

                                >The signage on the highway is pretty good in both directions. Each direction has three of those large programmable lighted signs sending people to the new parking. So most people (not all) will figure it out without having to turn around.

                                >The state is investing huge dollars to make this work. There is extensive full time Police and Ranger presence. While the presence is good, just this weekend we are probably spending a good chunk of the $ needed to fix the problem with a real parking lot at the existing trailhead.

                                >Volunteers are working hard to support this at Van Ho. They are currently encouraging people to explore Mt. Van Hoevenberg as a shorter alternative to Cascade or Pitchoff. But that may be hard to sell when the weekend peakbagging crowds show up.

                                Today was a drizzly weekday. We will see how things hold up over the weekend.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X