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

  • #31
    Seems like they could have done it more simply by just doing what they did at the Loj area that one time - only allowing people to park in legal parking spots and having a presence there to prevent additional parking.

    That, with a couple of the signs to let people know as they approach, certainly wouldn't have been any more costly (probably less) and done basically the same thing (keeping the people safely parked and not walking in traffic along cars improperly parked).

    Obviously that would still be a temporary fix (since they couldn't do that every day) but this appears to be temporary as well, so comparing temporary to temporary...

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by TCD View Post
      If this is a temporary solution, one wonders why the state cannot pony up for a shuttle bus, rather than 2.6 extra miles through non-descript woods...
      Sounds expensive.
      #9404
      http://edthesmokebeard.com/

      Comment


      • #33
        Drove past the Cascade trailhead on Saturday afternoon. All as per TCD's description plus state police and sheriff's vehicles parked at two pull-offs. I saw no cars parked along the highway and (from what I could see) the Cascade picnic area did not seem too busy. I did not visit the Ski Center.

        The ADK Loj road was its usual busy self on a holiday weekend. Cars parked along the east side from the Loj north to Meadows Lane and a bit beyond. Strong turn-out despite the rainy weather.
        Looking for views!

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by All Downhill From Here View Post
          Sounds expensive.
          Yes. Doing things right, rather than last minute on a shoe string, is, in fact, expensive in the short term. But it saves money and problems in the long term to have a solid plan that makes sense, an adequate budget and schedule, and then execute it properly. That was my point here:



          I hope something like that eventually happens.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by TCD View Post
            Yes. Doing things right, rather than last minute on a shoe string, is, in fact, expensive in the short term. But it saves money and problems in the long term to have a solid plan that makes sense, an adequate budget and schedule, and then execute it properly. That was my point here:



            I hope something like that eventually happens.

            I'm not meaning to be disagreeable just brainstorming.

            >A paved, striped parking lot for 200 cars, adjacent to Route 73, in the large relatively flat area just west of the Cascade trail.

            No response for parking overflow. Need "Meter Maid" style staff just to write parking tickets.

            >An unlimited supply of simplified paper maps and small penlights for the trailhead stewards to hand out as needed.

            How about the litter component. Maybe put a map online.

            >a large overflow parking lot in Keene Valley to support the Garden (challenging due to the need for a full time, updated shuttle service)

            Somehow I think this works as is. Remember the days before a presence at the lot and no guard rails? But then, I'm not a resident of Keene Valley; so, I may be way off base about the working part.

            >The AMR trailheads (challenging due to private land)

            No challenge. Perfect setup. Go BSP. Establish a daily limit and hire staff to enforce it. Warden is never there in the afternoon - need to add staff in afternoons. In time people will adapt as they do for the Garden Parking.


            >The Giant trailheads (challenging due to lack of flat land, and wetlands)
            Establish parking area along the road and enforce it.


            >Elk Lake (challenging due to private land)
            Self regulating if parking along the road outside the lot is enforced. Make people walk the 2 extra miles. The added distance will limit people.

            New one: Replace the no parking signs on east side of ADK Loj Road between South Meadows and ADK HPIC.

            Another new one: Set up parking areas allow reservations and bar coded entry passes. I hear on the radio there are smart phone reservation platforms for parking garages in NYC. Why not go 21st century about this.

            Don
            Last edited by Hear the Footsteps; 10-09-2017, 07:16 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Good ideas, Don. Thanks! Nice to have a lively discussion.

              I think there will be very little to no overflow at 200 spaces at Cascade. While the total number of hikers for the day has reached over 500, I have never counted more than about 150 cars there at any one point in time.

              I also worry about the litter from paper maps. But people litter now. And thanks to the "anti cell phone tower" crowd, many people have no service at the trailhead, so an online map will not help a large number of hikers. Remember, these people are not thinking about this until they get to the trailhead and are reminded by a steward.

              I do live in Keene. Inadequate Garden parking is a disaster; we have already had a full town meeting on it; many residents are extremely unhappy and the Town Supervisor has his hands full trying to deal with it. This is a problem created by the state and then foisted on the local small towns to try to fix.

              AMR - sure, that would actually work. It is a private trailhead after all.

              Giant - yes, much more shoulder could by paved and striped, and it would really help. (Same is true at Hurricane, where there are maybe 6 parking spaces and commonly about 30 cars on a summer Saturday.)

              Elk Lake: Not sure I like the idea. The hike is pretty long as it is. 30 years ago, I hiked with a young guy who had just finished his 46. *Now that he was done*, he was rabid to make all the walks longer and exclude everyone else. I told myself that I never wanted to think like that.

              Thanks!

              Comment


              • #37
                Is there some reason we shouldn't expect people to maybe have a map, perhaps printed from the internet before they tackle a 46er? I do not agree that we should be handing out maps to hikers. If you're dumb enough to try one without a map, have at it! I am a trailhead steward and we had our own maps to review and we let people take pictures of the Cascade trail, but it boggles my mind that people did not even have a clue where to buy a map, even though they probably had driven right by the Mountaineer. It is not our responsibility to make up for the research that they do not do before their hike.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by gebbyfish View Post
                  Is there some reason we shouldn't expect people to maybe have a map.....
                  ...It is not our responsibility to make up for the research that they do not do before their hike.
                  I agree but the flip side would (hopefully) be less SAR callouts in general by demonstrating to new hikers the value of having a map by giving them one. That is, if they decide to go buy one after their Cascade experience. Not that you need to ever look at one doing Cascade. Just follow the stream of hikers.

                  I would be against giving them microspikes, down sweaters, hats, gloves, food, water....
                  The best, the most successful adventurer, is the one having the most fun.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Thanks, Neil. I agree. There is a crying need to use root cause analysis to identify and address the real causes of problems.

                    Tony made a good start on this with his article in ADK a year or so ago. Keep it short; keep it simple; provide people with what data shows they need to avoid becoming part of the problem.

                    Simplified maps, lights, and instructions on going to the bathroom in the woods are a good start. Similarly, instructions to keep an eye on the time, dress properly, and keep their group together will help.

                    Sorry Gebby, but it's reality that many of these people do not have a clue. Expecting them to "buck up and bring their own map" will only result in more SAR calls. I have met several of these folks already this summer, who were in the High Peaks with no idea where they were or where they should go. It was sobering.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      The majority of SAR calls are for *injured* hikers. A free map won't shrink that big slice of the pie chart.

                      Lost hikers represent a much smaller proportion of the incidents but consumes a lot more SAR time so there's a financial incentive to reduce its incidence. Nevertheless, one would need to study lost hiker cases over several years and determine if a lack of map was the root cause.

                      I can think of a few incidents where having or not having a map had nothing to with becoming lost. In other cases, a map and compass would've helped but that's a learned skill you can't hand out at trailheads.

                      Fact is many neophyte hikers navigate by signposts and not maps. However, no matter how mapless/clueless they may be, the vast majority exit without need for SAR.

                      Many recent lost hiker incidents occurred above treeline in poor visibility. A map alone would've made little difference. The most recent incident (Stevens) is another example where a map alone is not a panacea.
                      Looking for views!

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Handing out free maps worries me that they'll be found on the trail as trash, as someone else alluded to earlier in the thread. One thing they have us offer to hikers are plastic "Leave No Trace" cards and it pains me to hand them out for the same reason, that they'll appear as trash on the trail.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          So any "boots on the ground" reports?

                          Significantly less hikers on Cascade? Were drop-offs permitted? How did hikers react? Were alternative hikes suggested at the trailhead? How was the morale of officials and volunteers? Any feel for whether this solution might be utilized again on busy weekends?

                          Did the southern portion of the Pitchoff reroute utilize the cross country trails rather than the private road? Did it exit to the westernmost pullout? Pitchoff from the west saw dramatically reduced traffic? Did this result in an increase in Pitchoff east traffic?

                          Sounds like people were safer than they would have been without this action ...

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by AvalanchePass View Post
                            So any "boots on the ground" reports?

                            Significantly less hikers on Cascade? Were drop-offs permitted? How did hikers react? Were alternative hikes suggested at the trailhead? How was the morale of officials and volunteers? Any feel for whether this solution might be utilized again on busy weekends?

                            Did the southern portion of the Pitchoff reroute utilize the cross country trails rather than the private road? Did it exit to the westernmost pullout? Pitchoff from the west saw dramatically reduced traffic? Did this result in an increase in Pitchoff east traffic?

                            Sounds like people were safer than they would have been without this action ...
                            I think Ron Konowitz was there the whole weekend, including Friday and posted on several of the Facebook groups. I think Saturday was a pretty busy day with hikers numbering around 550 or so. It tailed off significantly, only 34 on Monday as the weather wasn't great. Many people chose to go to Mt Van Hoevenberg when presented with the additional distance from what I recall him posting. Don't have any answers on the Pitchoff questions. He had lots of positive things to report.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Answering some of AP's specific questions:

                              The Pitchoff approach did use ski trails rather than the road as had been stated in the original DEC press release. Apparently the DEC learned that, even though it is on state land, the state can't use it as it is the access to the private inholding. They are also having trouble with the two land owners used by the ski trails between the main area and the Porter Mountain Loops - hence the section of new trail just off the eastern landowner's property but within sight of the existing ski trail.

                              No, despite the report on the local papers, drop-offs were not allowed. The line of barrels insured that no one could stop except directly in the travel lane. On Friday morning I spoke with an Uber driver from Saranac Lake who thought he could do a good business that weekend. He said he hadn't seen the arrangement at the trailhead. I strongly suggested that he check it out before accepting any riders. He left and never returned. That said, a shuttle system should be easy to arrange should the parking be restricted again.

                              Ron Kon might have more detailed statistics on how many climbed Mt. Van Hoevenberg instead, but I climbed it late Sunday afternoon after helping at that day's ski jumping competition. Starting a little after 3 PM, I counted 82 hikers descending the mountain. For many of them, it appeared that Van Hoevenberg had been a good choice.
                              Every time that wheel turns round, bound to measure just a little more ground.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Trail Boss View Post
                                The majority of SAR calls are for *injured* hikers. A free map won't shrink that big slice of the pie chart.

                                Lost hikers represent a much smaller proportion of the incidents but consumes a lot more SAR time so there's a financial incentive to reduce its incidence. Nevertheless, one would need to study lost hiker cases over several years and determine if a lack of map was the root cause.

                                I can think of a few incidents where having or not having a map had nothing to with becoming lost. In other cases, a map and compass would've helped but that's a learned skill you can't hand out at trailheads.

                                Fact is many neophyte hikers navigate by signposts and not maps. However, no matter how mapless/clueless they may be, the vast majority exit without need for SAR.

                                Many recent lost hiker incidents occurred above treeline in poor visibility. A map alone would've made little difference. The most recent incident (Stevens) is another example where a map alone is not a panacea.
                                I'm glad things went well this weekend, and that the seldom visited Mt. Van got a little love as a result of the layout.

                                TB, I know we've discussed this before on some other threads. I think there is a need to look a little deeper into the data to really understand what goes on. For example, many "distressed" hikers are distressed because they are tired (bit off more than they could chew), lost (separated from their party, not sure where they are), or scared (in an unfamiliar environment). Those all get classed under "injured." I think a real look at all the individual case reports would show that not as many of the hikers are really "injured" as it would appear from the cursory top level data summary. And many of those "distressed" cases could be avoided with the help of a simple map. (Of course for various reasons, none of us here have access to all the full reports, so we will have to rely on the state to do that analysis, eventually, maybe.)

                                Regarding the map, I am not suggesting teaching compass skills, or handing out the High Peaks topo map. That's a terrific map, for those who know how to use it. But very few of these folks can read that map at all. The type of map I am talking about would be like the one in this example:



                                It's got to be a simple map, that "non-map-reading" people can read. Of course someone would have to make that map, and print a bunch of copies on biodegradable paper ($).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X