Franconia Notch parking survey

[sierra]

I've been following this mess and find it amusing, how people look at it. Skiguy has part of it right, self entitlement for sure. I tend to look at it from the Guy Waterman perspective. I used to do the ridge every year at least once. It's been a few years since I've done it. How can you possibly be go on a hike where you can potentially run into 900 people. yes, that figure is correct, it was tallied by the stewards on one of their days there. That is not hiking that I have any interest in, no thanks. Just today, I have seen at least 4 trip reports for the ridge. First off, congratulations for getting the one millionth ascent, secondly, in your blind need to brag and show off yourself hiking, you are further contributing to both the parking problem and the total beat down the ridge is now experiencing. I hear people saying don't piss off the tourist, don't be mean to people who cant get up early, don't fault beginners that want to hike it, blah blah blah. Once the lot is full, find new parking options or better yet, go hike something else. I think they should be gracious and start out ticketing. Give that time to work, if it does not solve the problem in due time. Start towing, got to be a guy in Lincoln who could use some cash. No suit for me.

 

[TJsName]

It is definitely sad as NH spends a lot of money pushing for regional tourists from southern New England to come to the state and funds a big chunk of state government on room and meals tax. Odds are they are driving a car and tend to be on the road later in the day. The only rational is maybe the state wants to encourage them to drop down to the Flume or up to the road to the Tram which have nice big parking lots to access the paid attractions.

How many accidents have their been due to this parking vs. in other areas with similar speed limits? It's unclear to me if this action is to address an actual safety issue or a theorhetical one. My understanding is that moose in the Notch are a bigger hazard, but I am not privvy to the data. To treat the Parkway as a regular interstate seems silly. Given that it's one lane and a 45mph limit.

From the perspective of protection of the resource (trails and woods), I don't have a big problem with limiting parking. If they are just going to run a shuttle anyway though, it seems like a lot of wasted motion.

 

[skiguy]

How many accidents have their been due to this parking vs. in other areas with similar speed limits? It's unclear to me if this action is to address an actual safety issue or a theorhetical one. My understanding is that moose in the Notch are a bigger hazard, but I am not privvy to the data. To treat the Parkway as a regular interstate seems silly. Given that it's one lane and a 45mph limit.

From the perspective of protection of the resource (trails and woods), I don't have a big problem with limiting parking. If they are just going to run a shuttle anyway though, it seems like a lot of wasted motion.

It's against the law. Besides one breakdown and the traffic will be backed up to Concord. Which is another safety concern within itself.

https://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/nhsp/tsr/tsr101014.html

Making a case for theoretical over actual is fine until your the one in the actual situation.

I agree a shuttle is a waste of time, money and most importantly does not address the environmental concerns.

 

[DayTrip]

Yes the motive for this change in enforcement doesn't seem clear.

> The conversation of accidents in this area has been had here on VFTT and I don't think anyone could recall one of any significance, let alone a serious one. We all keep waiting for it to happen but it hasn't yet. And I've never been caught in stop and go traffic in the notch (unlike the exits for Lincoln - which is becoming more and more common). Southern NH is far worse and bad crashes are getting pretty common.
> I've seen more dead moose on the roads in NH this year than I ever have in the 30 or so years I've been going to NH. But has parking in the Notch been a factor in this? Don't really see a connection there. The early birds like myself cruising through there at 4-5AM are probably far more likely to hit a moose than amatuer hikers parking at 11AM.
> If the intent of limiting parking is to protect the condition of the Franconia Ridge than why are they promoting alternate areas to park and still access that area? Why is there discussion of shuttle services to keep pumping hikers into that area? Why is NH still advertising the area for tourism?

Seems to be a lot of poorly thought out things at play here and likely from agencies with differing agendas or points of view. Even that press release was vague. I don't expect there will be much of a change in behavior by the public until there is a clear and concise objective to what they are doing and rigorous enforcement. Seeing 50 cars jammed around the 1 "No Parking" sign they had on the Northbound side SAT doesn't really hammer the point home. I think at this point the only thing they can do is install additional guard rails so it is physically impossible for people to ignore the law.

 

[TJsName]

It's against the law. Besides one breakdown and the traffic will be backed up to Concord. Which is another safety concern within itself.

https://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/nhsp/tsr/tsr101014.html

Making a case for theoretical over actual is fine until your the one in the actual situation.

I agree a shuttle is a waste of time, money and most importantly does not address the environmental concerns.

Laws can be changed. Laws should be based on reason. It's not dangerous or safe just based on it's legality, it should be the other way around.

 

[skiguy]

Laws can be changed. Laws should be based on reason. It's not dangerous or safe just based on it's legality, it should be the other way around.

Until you want to move to the State of New Hampshire and have a voting right and make a legislative change I disagree with your logic. Until then I hope you respect our laws or pay the penalty. I will only do the same when I visit your State. Just because you choose to ignore what is Law in New Hampshire and choose to disagree does not give you the right to be unlawful within our State. It is about respect.
Reason or not.

 

[CaptCaper]

Being I live North of the Notch and travel thru it often on Weekends and Holidays I never seen or feel its dangerous.. I feel much more unsafe down in Southern NH and Boston area daytime during the week as I go about on business.

I would of liked to see some of those electric signs before the notch telling traffic to beware and speed limit drop on weekends to say 35 in that area. This is what they do in Acadia which is a lot worse. And Yellowstone etc. Also signs telling hikers to keep to walking on inside of parked cars. I suppose seasonal Ice and Snow start to give a Grey area. I remember a guy who tried to come up thru the Notch Colombus Day weekend once and hit ice towing his camper.. only 2 wheel drive so no luck. Had to back down all the way.. not good.

On the other hand many of the extra cars carry people who can easily hike from other parking lot's and do their hike still. Some might have to cut back on planned mileage but that is still a good day outdoors.

I don't care either way.. I don't hike those crowded trails anymore and I drive safely thru the Notches when I have to go down weekends.

 

[TJsName]

Until you want to move to the State of New Hampshire and have a voting right and make a legislative change I disagree with your logic. Until then I hope you respect our laws or pay the penalty. I will only do the same when I visit your State. Just because you choose to ignore what is Law in New Hampshire and choose to disagree does not give you the right to be unlawful within our State. It is about respect.
Reason or not.

So if I don't move to NH, laws cannot be changed? That seems silly.

I do generally obey the law, but not blindly. A "rules is rules" mindset only works if the law is based on reason, with the actual principles of liberty, freedom, and justice for all behind them. People hide behind the rule of law as excuses to repress others and advance their own selfish agendas, which is why a responsible citizen must ask, 'Why?'. Beliefs and feelings are no substitute for reason when it comes to the law.

 

[JoshandBaron]

So if I don't move to NH, laws cannot be changed? That seems silly.

.

Fortunately for you, no parking on an interstate is a federal thing. Be the change!

 

[peakbagger]

If the state wanted revenue, they could ticket every driver on the parkway for exceeding the speed limit. Its pretty rare for any active enforcement as the logistics are dangerous and difficult to pull anyone over. The state has had speed trap in the past including a laser trap but in order to support it they need lots of chase cars and that means they are draining the north country of resources as trooper are stretched thin.

If the state ever allows photo radar, they could generate the states budget off of speeding fines on the major highways

 

[TJsName]

If the state wanted revenue, they could ticket every driver on the parkway for exceeding the speed limit. Its pretty rare for any active enforcement as the logistics are dangerous and difficult to pull anyone over. The state has had speed trap in the past including a laser trap but in order to support it they need lots of chase cars and that means they are draining the north country of resources as trooper are stretched thin.

If the state ever allows photo radar, they could generate the states budget off of speeding fines on the major highways

I'd be all for it if tickets were applied based on better data and statistical modeling. There is a lot more that goes into safely driving than how quickly you're going. Type of vehicle, road conditions, traffic flow, towing, and so on. My point here is that if safety is the goal, better strategies are needed. Unfortunately, it seems that the revenue goal takes too much precedent, and the incentive structure makes me uneasy. In healthcare there is a push for improving outcomes (i.e. results based medicine) instead of just billing for every possible charge to maximize revenue. So, if you can present evidence that a speed trap in a certain location improves safety (measured by number of accidents, accounting for injuries and fatalities), then fine - go for it. If not - put the effort and resources elsewhere.

Of course this is easy in theory, but hard in practice. Many people/companies/governments struggle with how to capture and process data and link it to meaningful action, but hopefully society keeps moving in this direction.

Fortunately for you, no parking on an interstate is a federal thing. Be the change!

Haha - I'll lobby my congressperson. As far as the issue at hand, I might not be a great leader as I don't think I've ever parked on the side of an interstate and left the car (not even a breakdown). I'm with Sierra in that I prefer to avoid the crowds. The last time I reached the summit of Lafayette, I came up via Greenleaf from the tram lot, and descended via the Lincoln Slide. Still got to enjoy the ridge, but also enjoyed a lot of solitude; however, I don't hate the parts that are more crowded and I don't begrudge other people for enjoying exactly the same thing that I am enjoying.

I do trail work and I tend to hike on lesser used trails - that's the change I am being.

 

[skiguy]

So if I don't move to NH, laws cannot be changed? That seems silly.

I do generally obey the law, but not blindly. A "rules is rules" mindset only works if the law is based on reason, with the actual principles of liberty, freedom, and justice for all behind them. People hide behind the rule of law as excuses to repress others and advance their own selfish agendas, which is why a responsible citizen must ask, 'Why?'. Beliefs and feelings are no substitute for reason when it comes to the law.

Really? Nice job twisting my words to fit your agenda. I think you know I was expressing my opinion and to generalize my statement is a veil. The road in question happens to be an Interstate State Parkway within New Hampshire also within a State Park in New Hampshire. I agree you should run for office. I think you would make a better politician than you realize. I am certainly with you when it comes to reason and the law. Although I think the logic is already pretty good here and the law is appropriate.

 

[TJsName]

Really? Nice job twisting my words to fit your agenda. I think you know I was expressing my opinion and to generalize my statement is a veil. The road in question happens to be an Interstate State Parkway within New Hampshire also within a State Park in New Hampshire. I agree you should run for office. I think you would make a better politician than you realize. I am certainly with you when it comes to reason and the law. Although I think the logic is already pretty good here and the law is appropriate.

Haha, that's fair. I put the smiley face to imply that my interpretation was tounge-in-cheek. I know what you meant, I was just teasing the language you used.

As for the issue at hand, it seems our difference is our acceptance of the justification for the parking ban enforcement. I remain skeptical, but open to evidence and arguments one way or another.

 

[skiguy]

Haha, that's fair. I put the smiley face to imply that my interpretation was tounge-in-cheek. I know what you meant, I was just teasing the language you used.

As for the issue at hand, it seems our difference is our acceptance of the justification for the parking ban enforcement. I remain skeptical, but open to evidence and arguments one way or another.

Let's discuss this theoretical scenario. I am from New Hampshire and I am also an experienced Winter Driver. In addition I drive a large 4 wheel drive SUV. I am very confident in my abilities for Winter Travel. It's a Saturday morning and I am due to travel to Somerville, Ma. to visit a relative. I will be staying overnight. My relative lives in a small house with a short driveway that only has room for their one vehicle. I am made aware that there is a parking ban within the town of Somerville during Winter events like the one that is about to happen. I choose to ignore that parking ban because I don't agree with the reasoning behind the ban. I am from New Hampshire no less. I am a winter road warrior. After having parked my vehicle on the side of the road in front of my relatives home the storm continues. In the meantime the Town of Somerville is trying to plow and clear the roads. My vehicle is in the way therefore leaving a large amount of snow in the middle of the road creating a safety hazard. Afterwards I am fined by the Town of Somerville because I did not obey there local laws. My vehicle has also now been towed and impounded. I am still questioning the reasoning of the rational of this law because I don't agree with it. After I pay my fines and retrieve my vehicle I go back to New Hampshire. Upon arriving I immediately put my house up for sale. Move to Sommerville, Ma. and start running for Mayor so I can start a movement to change all parking bans within the town.

https://www.somervillema.gov/snowparking

 

[sierra]

I find it amazing the amount of pushback on this issue. You would think, we have one hike in NH. If that was the case, I would actually see an augment. I'm for the parking ban if for no other reason. The ridge should not have 900 people on it in one day, yes that's a good reason. TJsName, if your not a lawyer you should be. You would argue that the sun doesn't set everyday and believe you were right while doing so.

 

[peakbagger]

Parking along the road was always an issue at Pinkham Notch. The Pinkham parking lot consisted of an old section of RT 16 with poor storm water management. After a few towathons on busy weekends and much complaining, the southern lots were marginally improved, substantially increasing parking and a pedestrian bridge was put in place to direct pedestrians over the river while staying off the road. Sure there are still folks who are too lazy to park in the lots and park along the road but far less parking issues even though the Pinkham Notch lot was reduced in size to reduce sediment from entering the Cutler River.

Barring regulatory issues there is room for more parking at Lafayette place. Tuckerman's Ravine trail/Lions Head gets as much or more use. It was hardened and the OBP FW has been hardened. The aspect of overcrowding is an issue all over the whites, the loop is just the most obvious example but all the 4K trails are being overrun and beat to death.

 

[TJsName]

Let's discuss this theoretical scenario. I am from New Hampshire and I am also an experienced Winter Driver. In addition I drive a large 4 wheel drive SUV. I am very confident in my abilities for Winter Travel. It's a Saturday morning and I am due to travel to Somerville, Ma. to visit a relative. I will be staying overnight. My relative lives in a small house with a short driveway that only has room for their one vehicle. I am made aware that there is a parking ban within the town of Somerville during Winter events like the one that is about to happen. I choose to ignore that parking ban because I don't agree with the reasoning behind the ban. I am from New Hampshire no less. I am a winter road warrior. After having parked my vehicle on the side of the road in front of my relatives home the storm continues. In the meantime the Town of Somerville is trying to plow and clear the roads. My vehicle is in the way therefore leaving a large amount of snow in the middle of the road creating a safety hazard. Afterwards I am fined by the Town of Somerville because I did not obey there local laws. My vehicle has also now been towed and impounded. I am still questioning the reasoning of the rational of this law because I don't agree with it. After I pay my fines and retrieve my vehicle I go back to New Hampshire. Upon arriving I immediately put my house up for sale. Move to Sommerville, Ma. and start running for Mayor so I can start a movement to change all parking bans within the town.

https://www.somervillema.gov/snowparking

In this example, why does the theoretical you disagree with these ordinances? My point isn't that we get to pick and choose what laws to follows on a whim, is that any rule should be evaluated. In you example, I think the need for snow removal is a valid reason to prohibit parking temporarily in some places. I think it could be demonstrated in some places that failure to remove snow properly can impact safety in the short and long term (the cumulative effect of storms in an urban environment can be significant).

With respect the parking on the parkway, my understanding is that cars park on the shoulder, not in the breakdown lane. A quick review of the Google Maps satellite view seems to confirm that people park on the shoulder, and where there is guardrail, there are no cars. If this were a 65mph zone I would have more concerns, but as it is I think the shoulder parking leaves ample room for a a truck to breakdown while leaving room for another truck to pass it. I'd estimate there is about 25' of pavement (more or less), and trucks are about 8' wide (maybe 10' with mirrors). The ability for cars to safely pull over and get up to speed in the breakdown lane in these areas is a fair question. I think that the volume of traffic through the Notch is not so continuous that vehicles lack an opportunity to safely pull off and onto the roadway. These aren't strictly matter of opinion, so I think there is a chance for an objective conclusion.

Also, there is an important nuance is what I'm saying. It's not that I disagree with a parking ban on the shoulders of the parkway, it's that I don't agree with it and haven't been persuaded. It's akin to the difference between failing to reject a null hypothesis and confirming a hypothesis. It's an important concept - that something not being one thing doesn't mean it's its opposite. E.g., something that is "not cold" isn't necessarily "hot". It's why I like to say that "negative descriptions aren't helpful".

 

[skiguy]

In this example, why does the theoretical you disagree with these ordinances? My point isn't that we get to pick and choose what laws to follows on a whim, is that any rule should be evaluated. In you example, I think the need for snow removal is a valid reason to prohibit parking temporarily in some places. I think it could be demonstrated in some places that failure to remove snow properly can impact safety in the short and long term (the cumulative effect of storms in an urban environment can be significant).

With respect the parking on the parkway, my understanding is that cars park on the shoulder, not in the breakdown lane. A quick review of the Google Maps satellite view seems to confirm that people park on the shoulder, and where there is guardrail, there are no cars. If this were a 65mph zone I would have more concerns, but as it is I think the shoulder parking leaves ample room for a a truck to breakdown while leaving room for another truck to pass it. I'd estimate there is about 25' of pavement (more or less), and trucks are about 8' wide (maybe 10' with mirrors). The ability for cars to safely pull over and get up to speed in the breakdown lane in these areas is a fair question. I think that the volume of traffic through the Notch is not so continuous that vehicles lack an opportunity to safely pull off and onto the roadway. These aren't strictly matter of opinion, so I think there is a chance for an objective conclusion.

Also, there is an important nuance is what I'm saying. It's not that I disagree with a parking ban on the shoulders of the parkway, it's that I don't agree with it and haven't been persuaded. It's akin to the difference between failing to reject a null hypothesis and confirming a hypothesis. It's an important concept - that something not being one thing doesn't mean it's its opposite. E.g., something that is "not cold" isn't necessarily "hot". It's why I like to say that "negative descriptions aren't helpful".

45 miles an hour is still fast enough to cause a major accident. If anything parking on the shoulder and not the breakdown lane leads to a false sense of security to travel the speed limit or faster due to a larger space. We can certainly agree to disagree with each other’s hypothesis. There is a law in place and I personally choose not to be ignorant of that law. I find it difficult to rationalize a law which is inherently in place to keep people safe. Not to mention the environmental damage this situation has created. Unfortunately for others who rationalize this situation the State of NH seems to disagree and is moving in the direction of enforcement.

 

[DayTrip]

And obviously no one is driving 45 mph through there despite the legal speed limit. People regularly cruise through there at 55-65 mph. Not to mention all the "trappings" of the modern driver: texting while driving, trying to snap selfies of the notch, tailgating 10' off people's bumpers, etc. I think it is nothing short of amazing that something horrible has not already happened in that area. Hopefully it stays that way but it certainly feels like we are on borrowed time.

 

[skiguy]

And obviously no one is driving 45 mph through there despite the legal speed limit. People regularly cruise through there at 55-65 mph. Not to mention all the "trappings" of the modern driver: texting while driving, trying to snap selfies of the notch, tailgating 10' off people's bumpers, etc. I think it is nothing short of amazing that something horrible has not already happened in that area. Hopefully it stays that way but it certainly feels like we are on borrowed time.

My sentiments exactly.