Adirondack Forum  
Rules Membership Donations and Online Store Adkhighpeaks Foundation ADKhighpeaks Forums ADKhighpeaks Wiki Disclaimer

Go Back   Adirondack Forum > The Adirondack Forum > General Adirondack Discussion
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-30-2021, 01:10 PM   #1
2505
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 162
AMR parking

https://www.perugazette.com/2021/03/...PvQX39FsrvqzO0

Discuss....I am for any potential solutions...we'll see how this works
2505 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2021, 03:22 PM   #2
TCD
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,951
Being discussed over here:

https://www.adkhighpeaks.com/forums/...as-implemented

Peru Gazette sub-headline is disingenuous, just parroting state propaganda. There's no evidence that these parking restrictions "increase public safety." In fact, all of the eyewitness evidence on the ground is that the restrictions implemented to date GREATLY HARM public safety, and I would expect the same result from this latest ham-handed state action.
TCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2021, 03:55 PM   #3
JimVroman
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 133
Sad to say that it had to come.
Overcrowding is the greatest threat.
JimVroman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2021, 05:33 PM   #4
Justin
Moving along
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,739
I’m happy to see some steps are being taken to help try & resolve some the extreme high use issues within the high peaks region. Kudos to AMR & DEC for starting somewhere. Obviously this is just a “pilot system” with lots of unanswered questions & data, so we’ll see where it goes. I’m just getting a kick out the amount of people who are so upset with this & think they can no longer go hiking whenever they want anymore and need to make a reservation first, as if this was the only access point for the prestigious 46.
Justin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2021, 06:26 PM   #5
TCD
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,951
Well it certainly has no effect on my hiking; I have not hiked from the AMR lot in quite a while.

But you cannot look at all this from just your own perspective. You have to recognize the reality of the user population. Maybe people are silly in wanting so badly to hike from that access point, but what matters is reality - lots of people want to start there. And safety is being impacted, as they trek along the shoulder of the highway to get there. It's only a matter of time before someone gets killed, and the state owns that for creating this situation.

So sorry, Jim, I have to disagree. Someone's kid getting killed by a car is the greatest threat, not overcrowding. Orders of magnitude greater.

And Justin, while I hope that accident never happens, if it does, you might having to delete the "laughing emoji" from your post.

We all would like to see this situation improved. But the state created this situation over the last 20-30 years, and every action they have taken so far has been wrongheaded, and has made things worse, not better (including this most recent action).
TCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2021, 06:41 PM   #6
Justin
Moving along
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCD View Post

And Justin, while I hope that accident never happens, if it does, you might having to delete the "laughing emoji" from your post.
Tom, please don’t get me wrong. Of course I always hope that accident never happens also, but the fact that people actually think the AMR access is the only access to that region of mountains in the high peaks is laughable.

Last edited by Justin; 03-31-2021 at 08:04 AM..
Justin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2021, 08:42 PM   #7
Hear the Footsteps
Member
 
Hear the Footsteps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Saratoga County, NY
Posts: 210
I'm not a fan. Yet I've expected something like this since the late 90's. If it had been initiated then maybe we wouldn't be where we are now.

I'm not a fan. But I can get a hike in in 14 hours from AMR.

I'm not a fan. But most of my hiking years are behind me. I can count myself lucky.

I'm not a fan. I never got a ride on the Bus on the Lake Road. I don't miss it.

Those that are not a fan and have hiking years ahead. They may not share my opinion.

As I said in a similar post on ADKHIGHPEAKS
I'm curious about the startup and whether the powers that be will make sure it starts up in an organized fashion. Once a system is in place and people understand how it works it will be tolerable. Not what the hikers want but OK. Those that never experience any other way won't miss it.
Hear the Footsteps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2021, 08:43 PM   #8
Hear the Footsteps
Member
 
Hear the Footsteps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Saratoga County, NY
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin View Post
I’m happy to see some steps are being taken to help try & resolve some the extreme high use issues within the high peaks region. Kudos to AMR & DEC for starting somewhere. Obviously this is just a “pilot system” with lots of unanswered questions & data, so we’ll see where it goes. I’m just getting a kick out the amount of people who are so upset with this & think they can no longer go hiking whenever they want anymore and need to make a reservation first, as if this was the only access point for the prestigious 46.
Your laughing imoji. Why I count my self as blessed not to be a member of certain social media.
Hear the Footsteps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2021, 08:58 PM   #9
Justin
Moving along
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hear the Footsteps View Post
Your laughing imoji. Why I count my self as blessed not to be a member of certain social media.
I’m sure just as blessed as people who choose to use phone apps instead of actual maps. Some are out dated, and most are inaccurate. To each their own outdoor enjoyment and how they go about it.
Justin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2021, 09:57 AM   #10
saabrian
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 132
TCD: You are right that the state has exacerbated this problem by inviting masses of people to the HP without giving rangers, trails and municipalities adequate resources to deal with this influx.

But the public safety solution to the risk you mention is for the sheriff's department and/or state police (not forest rangers) to enforce parking regulations mercilessly. If a car is parked illegally on 73 or any other road, tow it. Or slap a $500 ticket on it. Word will get around and that will solve the problem pretty quickly.
__________________
Successful ascents: 123 (75 different) as of 10/9/21
Adirondack/Catskill fire tower challenge: 12/30
Adk 29er challenge: 11/29
Completed: Chester Challenge, Tupper Lake Triad
saabrian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2021, 10:29 AM   #11
tenderfoot
Member
 
tenderfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Rochester NY
Posts: 417
Quote:
and the state owns that for creating this situation.
I respectfully disagree. As a driver, father, individual I would not choose to park on the shoulder of a highway. If lot is full I move on. I do not think people are forced to park on the highway because the lot is full. It's full! Go elsewhere.

As a hiker occasionally transiting through AMR property I appreciate the graciousness of the host. I do not understand the details of the easement but am grateful they provide access. If they choose to reduce parking, require registration, etc. fine by me. I appreciate the access.

I also appreciate the shuttle provided by Keene, the additional parking improvements along the 73 corridor but would not appreciate increasing parking capacity at the expense of the wilderness people are visiting.

Just my 1.5 cents
__________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eyes on the Forest, not on the Trees
tenderfoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2021, 11:31 AM   #12
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by saabrian View Post
TCD: You are right that the state has exacerbated this problem by inviting masses of people to the HP without giving rangers, trails and municipalities adequate resources to deal with this influx.

But the public safety solution to the risk you mention is for the sheriff's department and/or state police (not forest rangers) to enforce parking regulations mercilessly. If a car is parked illegally on 73 or any other road, tow it. Or slap a $500 ticket on it. Word will get around and that will solve the problem pretty quickly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenderfoot View Post
I respectfully disagree. As a driver, father, individual I would not choose to park on the shoulder of a highway. If lot is full I move on. I do not think people are forced to park on the highway because the lot is full. It's full! Go elsewhere.

As a hiker occasionally transiting through AMR property I appreciate the graciousness of the host. I do not understand the details of the easement but am grateful they provide access. If they choose to reduce parking, require registration, etc. fine by me. I appreciate the access.

I also appreciate the shuttle provided by Keene, the additional parking improvements along the 73 corridor but would not appreciate increasing parking capacity at the expense of the wilderness people are visiting.

Just my 1.5 cents
I agree with both these sentiments. It's not a problem where you can really point at one entity, and it's up to citizens to be responsible for their own safety as well. We constantly hear certain people crying about the "nanny" state of public safety affairs, but it's really up to individuals to own up to their decisions. Without going off into that rabbit hole, enforcement of these kind of things can help education, or give people the boot in the ass they need to figure something else out.

I'm not really all too worried about uber-popular hikes like Cascade. I think eventually that trail will be a "wilderness foot road" and it will be what it is. Well used, hopefully well-built, but non-motorized. Damage will hopefully be contained to a minor corridor and people will be educated to stay on bare rock on summits.

It's not like there aren't a million other things to do in that general region of the world, so hopefully hikers burn themselves out and branch out to other areas, and we just accept the high use areas and manage accordingly.

Last edited by montcalm; 03-31-2021 at 05:44 PM..
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2021, 03:09 PM   #13
JimVroman
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCD View Post
Well it certainly has no effect on my hiking; I have not hiked from the AMR lot in quite a while.

But you cannot look at all this from just your own perspective. You have to recognize the reality of the user population. Maybe people are silly in wanting so badly to hike from that access point, but what matters is reality - lots of people want to start there. And safety is being impacted, as they trek along the shoulder of the highway to get there. It's only a matter of time before someone gets killed, and the state owns that for creating this situation.

So sorry, Jim, I have to disagree. Someone's kid getting killed by a car is the greatest threat, not overcrowding. Orders of magnitude greater.

And Justin, while I hope that accident never happens, if it does, you might having to delete the "laughing emoji" from your post.

We all would like to see this situation improved. But the state created this situation over the last 20-30 years, and every action they have taken so far has been wrongheaded, and has made things worse, not better (including this most recent action).
I'm sorry that you misinterpreted my comment.
I was referring to the overcrowding of trails and peaks, not parking on a busy highway.
JimVroman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2021, 12:24 PM   #14
BillyGr
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 111
Not sure how this is a STATE action (since the group doing it is private). The state may say it's OK but they didn't set it up.

Also, it would actually help with the parking and walking on the road situation, since there is no longer a reason to walk on the highway, as walk ins without a reservation WILL NOT BE ALLOWED (as it said in the story).
So no one needs to park elsewhere and try to walk in, since they won't be able to anyhow!
BillyGr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2021, 01:32 PM   #15
TCD
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyGr View Post
Not sure how this is a STATE action (since the group doing it is private). The state may say it's OK but they didn't set it up.

Also, it would actually help with the parking and walking on the road situation, since there is no longer a reason to walk on the highway, as walk ins without a reservation WILL NOT BE ALLOWED (as it said in the story).
So no one needs to park elsewhere and try to walk in, since they won't be able to anyhow!
1. Read the announcement. The state is taking the credit, and "DEC" is giving itself "top billing" over "AMR" every time they are both mentioned. So yeah, AMR is doing all the work, but if the state is trying this hard to get the credit, as far as I'm concerned they own it.

2. The woods is big; I doubt that people who want to walk in are going to walk up to the gate and knock. Plus, this will simply push more people to Chapel Pond and the Garden, and there will be more road walking in those areas.
TCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2021, 10:37 AM   #16
BillyGr
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 111
OK, I do see that they stick themselves in. It was more that people have figured this is a start and they will expand it in the future, noting that may not be as easy as it sounds since they won't have private help for all areas like there is here.

At least the Garden access has other transport for busier times (or at least normally, last year being an exception), and most walking would be on a smaller road with less traffic.
Even though the one time (a few years back now, in the winter) where we parked to walk to the AMR gate (probably some of those now marked no parking areas that weren't then), it didn't seem that bad. Everyone was parked on one side, so when traffic allowed you crossed to the side you wanted to be on and walked that empty shoulder and it didn't interfere with traffic, you just had to watch before crossing as you would on any roadway or street.
BillyGr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2021, 09:57 AM   #17
saabrian
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 132
Interesting to see how it plays out in practice. I'm supportive of it in theory. There is no God-given right to kill the Golden Goose. Hiker-ship at the AMR is like 5 times higher than when they signed the easement in 1978. This preserves access but adds some sort of sanity to the situation as well as some equity. If it works, I hope they expand it to other parts of the High Peaks.

I haven't hiked in the HPWA from Route 73 since like 2013... and never at the AMR. I gave up. I don't want to leave my house at 4:30 am to risk not getting a parking spot or a ticket. I've discovered a lot of other great places in the Adks... but I would like to be able to go there too once in a while.

If done right, this system adds some equity to the access.
__________________
Successful ascents: 123 (75 different) as of 10/9/21
Adirondack/Catskill fire tower challenge: 12/30
Adk 29er challenge: 11/29
Completed: Chester Challenge, Tupper Lake Triad
saabrian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2021, 10:21 AM   #18
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,676
I definitely agree with this sentiment above.

Not really a high peaker, but I do like to go now and again. I generally enjoy everything about the experience except the parking. I haven't had to poop or camp there yet, so I'm only seeing about 1/3 of the problem.

So many other places get this way as well, and frankly, should probably be permit systems i.e. St. Regis Canoe area. It's already kind of this way with two giant campgrounds which are very hard to get reservations at. Actually 3 when you think about the Saranac Islands. Lows and Lila have been suffering for years like this as well, and probably should be managed.

In reality, for as big as the Adirondacks are, there isn't enough backcountry to accommodate the number of potential users from Montreal and NYC.
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2021, 01:33 PM   #19
Klinkhamer
Member
 
Klinkhamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Malta, NY
Posts: 78
Not a fan at all of all the metal posts that now block the entry of any vehicles onto these pull-off areas. To me this is a horrible traffic accident waiting to happen. I get that parking is not wanted in these areas, but if your car has to pull off onto shoulder now, you simply can't pull off the road safely. If you have a breakdown on this section of Rte 73, you will have to basically leave your vehicle partly on the roadway which now can be a nasty surprise in the dark. Vehicles on this steep hill now have to avoid collision if a vehicle is stopped because the driver cannot get their disabled vehicle out of the roadway now that shoulders are all blocked by metal posts. Could have done without all this and just towed vehicles that parked there with some obvious signage of what would happen. I no longer hike the HP, but travel through there very often, and these posts are making it far worse in order to eliminate parking on this section of road. Someone is going to end up busting through these metal posts trying to avoid a crash.
__________________
Rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy

Last edited by Klinkhamer; 05-19-2021 at 09:02 AM..
Klinkhamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2021, 06:37 PM   #20
TCD
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klinkhamer View Post
Not a fan at all of all the metal posts that now block the entry of any vehicles onto these pull-off areas. To me this is a horrible traffic accident waiting to happen. I get that parking is not wanted in these areas anymore, but if your car has to pull off onto shoulder now, you simply can't pull off the road safely anymore. If you have a breakdown on this section of Rte 73, you will have to basically leave your vehicle partly on the roadway which now can be a nasty surprise in the dark. Vehicles on this steep hill now have to avoid collision if a vehicle is stopped because the driver cannot get their disabled vehicle out of the roadway now that shoulders are all blocked by metal posts. Could have done without all the metal posts and just towed vehicles that parked there with some obvious signage of what would happen. I no longer hike the HP, but travel through there very often and these posts are making it far worse in order to eliminate parking on this section of road. Someone is going to end up busting through these metal posts trying to avoid a crash.
100% correct.

This is (another) Albany administrative failure. As I understand it; the inside story is that the state failed to allocate police (State Trooper) resources to police the no-parking areas. So, as with many other things, the task of being "meter maids" fell to the very understaffed Forest Rangers. After a season of using Forest Rangers as meter maids, DEC decided to get rid of the parking in those areas, so they would not have to do the enforcement.

So the circus continues. Your tax dollars at work.
TCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

DISCLAIMER: Use of these forums, and information found herein, is at your own risk. Use of this site by members and non-members alike is only granted by the adkhighpeak.com administration provided the terms and conditions found in the FULL DISCLAIMER have been read. Continued use of this site implies that you have read, understood and agree to the terms and conditions of this site. Any questions can be directed to the Administrator of this site.