Franconia Notch parking survey
- Thread starter gram
- Start date
Help Support vftt.org:
sierra
Well-known member
I've taken some greats shots of Cannon cliff, while driving through there.
Me too. But I didn’t stop to park illegally for most of the day while doing it.
Raven
Well-known member
Interesting points throughout this conversation. I'll add my two cents to respond to a few themes coming out.
1. My concern is maintaining the ecosystem and natural quality of NH. The ridge has too many people on busy days. Parking lots don't alleviate that.
2. What would be useful is data on the number of accidents (if any) that have been caused by this phenomenon. Law enforcement accident reports have causes listed. How many accidents? Major causes? That will tell the level of public safety we are dealing with in this case specifically. How big of a concern is it HERE? Is this the best use of law enforcement funds? Or maybe ticketing speeders or texters would keep people safer. There is always opportunity cost.
3. To PB's point on video radar....I once received a note in the mail from the EZ Pass authority suggesting I was going too fast through a toll once. Maybe true, maybe not. I returned the notice with a question for them. "Who was driving the car?" Drivers can be ticketed, not vehicles.
3a. Although laws have purposes, and they should often be followed, they must always be questioned, analyzed, constantly reassessed, and periodically ignored, sometimes loudly. Blind adherence to laws is how fascists take over. Question authority and use your minds. Support laws that are just. We all need to do that for public safety.
4. It is VERY difficult for any authority to come in and enforce laws that have been ignored for years. Precedents carry more weight than unenforced laws. To argue that people are in danger and this parking must stop is to also admit a safety concern has been ignored for years. That's a tough place from which to argue. To give credit to law enforcement, I'd say there has been a BIG push in letting people know the ticketing is coming...
5. To TJ's points...a good lawyer you would make. There are two choices: ham or turkey. I don't like ham. It does not follow that I therefore must like turkey. Perhaps I am vegetarian. What I like about TJ's points is that he lets no logical fallacy go unnoticed. I appreciate that. I hear more fallacious arguments than any other kind now. Logical reasoning is unfortunately a dying skill.
6. I want some data. I want the last 20 years of 48 finishers by year. At the same time, also year to year, I want to see the activity (total posts) and the enrollment in the FB 48 hiking group. A quick statistical analysis to find the correlation. As TJ will know, correlation is not necessarily causation....but it can be.
7. The Whites are being over loved. Pick up trash, stay on trail, be more considerate of others, let faster hikers pass, single file in groups, as solo hikers, step aside to let groups pass you when opposing directions, and uphill hikers have the right of way if they choose it. A little courtesy and kindness will go a long way. So will hiking in Maine, Vermont, in NH under 4,000 feet, on Tuesdays, at night, and in November or April. I love Franconia Ridge. I've had it essentially to myself by choosing my time. Not everyone had that luxury. I'll let them have their summer Saturdays. I'll wander random connector trails.
8. Happy trails. Happy parking.
Let's watch. Think it will be busy today??
1. My concern is maintaining the ecosystem and natural quality of NH. The ridge has too many people on busy days. Parking lots don't alleviate that.
2. What would be useful is data on the number of accidents (if any) that have been caused by this phenomenon. Law enforcement accident reports have causes listed. How many accidents? Major causes? That will tell the level of public safety we are dealing with in this case specifically. How big of a concern is it HERE? Is this the best use of law enforcement funds? Or maybe ticketing speeders or texters would keep people safer. There is always opportunity cost.
3. To PB's point on video radar....I once received a note in the mail from the EZ Pass authority suggesting I was going too fast through a toll once. Maybe true, maybe not. I returned the notice with a question for them. "Who was driving the car?" Drivers can be ticketed, not vehicles.
3a. Although laws have purposes, and they should often be followed, they must always be questioned, analyzed, constantly reassessed, and periodically ignored, sometimes loudly. Blind adherence to laws is how fascists take over. Question authority and use your minds. Support laws that are just. We all need to do that for public safety.
4. It is VERY difficult for any authority to come in and enforce laws that have been ignored for years. Precedents carry more weight than unenforced laws. To argue that people are in danger and this parking must stop is to also admit a safety concern has been ignored for years. That's a tough place from which to argue. To give credit to law enforcement, I'd say there has been a BIG push in letting people know the ticketing is coming...
5. To TJ's points...a good lawyer you would make. There are two choices: ham or turkey. I don't like ham. It does not follow that I therefore must like turkey. Perhaps I am vegetarian. What I like about TJ's points is that he lets no logical fallacy go unnoticed. I appreciate that. I hear more fallacious arguments than any other kind now. Logical reasoning is unfortunately a dying skill.
6. I want some data. I want the last 20 years of 48 finishers by year. At the same time, also year to year, I want to see the activity (total posts) and the enrollment in the FB 48 hiking group. A quick statistical analysis to find the correlation. As TJ will know, correlation is not necessarily causation....but it can be.
7. The Whites are being over loved. Pick up trash, stay on trail, be more considerate of others, let faster hikers pass, single file in groups, as solo hikers, step aside to let groups pass you when opposing directions, and uphill hikers have the right of way if they choose it. A little courtesy and kindness will go a long way. So will hiking in Maine, Vermont, in NH under 4,000 feet, on Tuesdays, at night, and in November or April. I love Franconia Ridge. I've had it essentially to myself by choosing my time. Not everyone had that luxury. I'll let them have their summer Saturdays. I'll wander random connector trails.
8. Happy trails. Happy parking.
Let's watch. Think it will be busy today??
Last edited:
RollingRock
Active member
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.
Sierra, I'm with you 100%. A gracious start would be a policeman monitoring people parking on the sides of the road for a few hours each morning, walking up to them and let them know if they park there, they will be fined. If one person starts parking next to the NO PARKING signs others will follow thinking it must be OK and that nobody is paying attention.
I hope the State is working on offering a shuttle to the trailhead from the Tram parking lot. for let's say $10, for those folks who've traveled from afar and want to hike the loop. It is such a great hike and I can easily understand the attraction. If they don't want to pay the shuttle, they always just get to Lafayette via the Greenleaf Trail and skip the loop altogether.
Mike P.
Well-known member
I also received and I called on it, I was told that it was a scam looking for data, likely people who call, can pay by check or credit card.
Mike P.
Well-known member
I've parked a couple of times at Cannon and have brought a bike to ride to the start and hiked back to the car. It's nice to do Cannon with or without Cannonballs & Kinsmans and a way to ride down to Liberty Spring or Falling waters and hike back to the car by Greenleaf with a short road walk.
Raven
Well-known member
This would be the most effective long term solution in my opinion. It comes from a place of reason and courtesy, acknowledges that this is not a new law but IS newly enforced, and avoids towing which would be bad optics in this case. In order to change this habit, they're going to have to be very diligent in the beginning to keep it fully clear. Ideally, it gets handled this way.
I can't imagine people going somewhere else on their own to hike, so at the start I expect people will park anywhere else possible to get to the Franconia Ridge. The small lots in the vicinity will be hit with the overflow.
Nope, not true. I drive 45 MPH through there, as do the dozen cars fortunate enough to be stuck behind me at that time. And when the road converts back to two lanes each way, I move over so those cars can speed past me and make up that valuable 40 seconds they lost in the notch.
As to the parking issue, I'm not smart enough, nor do I care enough, to try to solve that.
The 8 miles of single lane highway (which required a special law to be passed to ignore the laws around interstate requirements, btw) at 45mph takes 10m and 40s to pass. At 55, it's almost 2 minutes faster (closer to 8m 44s). This is 2.4x longer than your estimate.
Your point about some people going the speed limit is quite valid though. Many people go 45 through there. No clue what the percentage is, but it's not zero.
Last edited:
peakbagger
In Rembrance , July 2024
I go through there at 45 in the early morning and after dark hours in the spring and fall when moose are very active. Saved me a few moose hits over the years Also have been known to drive far below 45 when there could be icing conditions. I knew of one person who totaled 2 subarus in less than year foolishly assuming that all wheel drive is a substitute for keeping an eye on the conditions.
Some of my favorite beaches are the ones where I have to get there early to find a parking spot, since the parking is very limited, and illegal parking is highly policed. The beaches are much less crowded. Maybe this area is a good candidate for usage control by parking limitation. Of course, as others mentioned, there's the issue with the AMC facilities, but I'm sure that a solution for that could also be found, within the limited parking framework.
If we want to talk about safety...
1) I (personally) would much rather take my chances parking just off the highway than having people taking pictures or texting while driving, especially if they are far exceeding the speed limit. This applies from the south end of the notch to routes 3 and 302 in Twin Mountain. People go way too fast this whole stretch.
2) I suspect that forcing people to hike elsewhere due to parking, or "too much love" for Franconia Ridge, will also lead to more rescues. At least on FR, there are lots of people who can help you out if you get lost, run out of water, daylight, etc. People who don't have maps or compasses perhaps have either hiked the ridge before or at least looked up directions somewhere. Not everyone has a full set of maps, phone apps, gps, or WMG such that they can head north and decide, based on parking availability, where they will hike.
Keep in mind that the very first paragraph at http://www.amc4000footer.org/ reads:
The Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) Four Thousand Footer Club was formed in 1957 to introduce hikers to some of the less known sections of the White Mountains of New Hampshire. At that time, peaks such as Hancock, Owl's Head and West Bond were trail-less and rarely climbed. The problems of overuse were unknown, except along the heavily visited Presidential Range and Franconia Ridge.
Tim
1) I (personally) would much rather take my chances parking just off the highway than having people taking pictures or texting while driving, especially if they are far exceeding the speed limit. This applies from the south end of the notch to routes 3 and 302 in Twin Mountain. People go way too fast this whole stretch.
2) I suspect that forcing people to hike elsewhere due to parking, or "too much love" for Franconia Ridge, will also lead to more rescues. At least on FR, there are lots of people who can help you out if you get lost, run out of water, daylight, etc. People who don't have maps or compasses perhaps have either hiked the ridge before or at least looked up directions somewhere. Not everyone has a full set of maps, phone apps, gps, or WMG such that they can head north and decide, based on parking availability, where they will hike.
Keep in mind that the very first paragraph at http://www.amc4000footer.org/ reads:
The Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) Four Thousand Footer Club was formed in 1957 to introduce hikers to some of the less known sections of the White Mountains of New Hampshire. At that time, peaks such as Hancock, Owl's Head and West Bond were trail-less and rarely climbed. The problems of overuse were unknown, except along the heavily visited Presidential Range and Franconia Ridge.
Tim
peakbagger
In Rembrance , July 2024
Having Greenleaf Hut nearby is a big plus for novice hikers, I expect having a water source and a some staff up high can really cut down on calls. If I remember correctly they also sell flashlights for the unprepared.
I tend to hike clockwise and must admit that I depend on the hut so I don't need to haul as much water up OBP
I tend to hike clockwise and must admit that I depend on the hut so I don't need to haul as much water up OBP
KV
Member
This is part of the problem, as the signs do not read "NO PARKING." I forget what the exact wording is, but that, it is not.
peakbagger
In Rembrance , July 2024
North Conway hired someone just to deal with the parking issues at Dianna's Bath this summer. Things got pretty unfriendly last year when the town started enforcing parking limits.
Not sure if the USFS volunteers at the tents are allowed to deal with parking issues at Lafayette place as the parking is state controlled. IMHO, the state gets the revenue from parking fines and owns the lots so they are the logical entity to supply staff to manage the parking.
Not sure if the USFS volunteers at the tents are allowed to deal with parking issues at Lafayette place as the parking is state controlled. IMHO, the state gets the revenue from parking fines and owns the lots so they are the logical entity to supply staff to manage the parking.
Last edited:
Ignoring (aware but disregarding) a law is not the same as being ignorant (unaware) of the law. The law's intent might be safety, but that doesn't mean it's effective. I'm not a lawyer, and have no interest in that line of work currently. I've said this before, but I'm a coder/programmer, and writing good code is really hard most of the time, and I think it's similar to writing good laws. In a perfect world, there would be one law: Everyone do everything perfectly. Of course, imperfections in humanity require the code to be more complex, so instead we have books of laws generally designed to keep society intact. I say generally because some laws do a better job than others. Some laws get written, rolled out, then repealed or amended (like bug fixes or updates in software). The biggest difference between writing code and laws is that the computer will do what you tell it to do, not what you want it to do; it doesn't care about intent. As for laws, they are often written so broadly, humans are forced to try and judge the intent of the laws, and people do it with varying degrees of success. Some people tend to apply reason and logic to their understanding, while others lean towards faith and emotions - two different approaches that use two very different sets of rules that can lead to very different conclusions.
As applies to this conversation, it really doesn't matter what either of us thinks or believe, what matters are the facts, and trying to honestly answer any questions that are raised. If there are no major accidents when major accidents would be expected, why is that? That question is just as valid as trying to determine why there are major accidents (if there are any). A consideration of all the factors involved to judge safety is the only way to come to a justifiable conclusion. Sitting back and saying 'I don't think it's safe' or 'the law is in place for a reason' isn't an argument; it's a conclusion. I think that "arguing by conclusion" is unproductive because it fails to address the root of an actual disagreement, which is likely predicated in either an assumption (used to plug a hole in an unknown), or the methodology itself (e.g., testing to see if the Thoreau Falls bridge can be removed because it's a safe crossing in late August).
So, what is our actual disagreement here that is leading to different conclusions? I would make a terrible politician because I'm actually responding to you, not just saying what I was going to say regardless. "Good" politicians don't answer the question.
And Sierra, let me know what time the sun sets tonight in Tromsø, Norway. I would argue that it doesn't set and I think you'd agree!
Of course, the 'setting" is actually an illusion... ok I'll stop!
I’m not arguing with you Mr. Spock. I’m just coming to my own conclusion and going by it. While at the same time respecting your conclusions but disagreeing with that conclusion.Ignoring (aware but disregarding) a law is not the same as being ignorant (unaware) of the law. The law's intent might be safety, but that doesn't mean it's effective. I'm not a lawyer, and have no interest in that line of work currently. I've said this before, but I'm a coder/programmer, and writing good code is really hard most of the time, and I think it's similar to writing good laws. In a perfect world, there would be one law: Everyone do everything perfectly. Of course, imperfections in humanity require the code to be more complex, so instead we have books of laws generally designed to keep society intact. I say generally because some laws do a better job than others. Some laws get written, rolled out, then repealed or amended (like bug fixes or updates in software). The biggest difference between writing code and laws is that the computer will do what you tell it to do, not what you want it to do; it doesn't care about intent. As for laws, they are often written so broadly, humans are forced to try and judge the intent of the laws, and people do it with varying degrees of success. Some people tend to apply reason and logic to their understanding, while others lean towards faith and emotions - two different approaches that use two very different sets of rules that can lead to very different conclusions.
As applies to this conversation, it really doesn't matter what either of us thinks or believe, what matters are the facts, and trying to honestly answer any questions that are raised. If there are no major accidents when major accidents would be expected, why is that? That question is just as valid as trying to determine why there are major accidents (if there are any). A consideration of all the factors involved to judge safety is the only way to come to a justifiable conclusion. Sitting back and saying 'I don't think it's safe' or 'the law is in place for a reason' isn't an argument; it's a conclusion. I think that "arguing by conclusion" is unproductive because it fails to address the root of an actual disagreement, which is likely predicated in either an assumption (used to plug a hole in an unknown), or the methodology itself (e.g., testing to see if the Thoreau Falls bridge can be removed because it's a safe crossing in late August).
So, what is our actual disagreement here that is leading to different conclusions? I would make a terrible politician because I'm actually responding to you, not just saying what I was going to say regardless. "Good" politicians don't answer the question.
And Sierra, let me know what time the sun sets tonight in Tromsø, Norway. I would argue that it doesn't set and I think you'd agree!
Last edited:
Am I Spock do to being logical, or just as a foil to yours and McCoy's moral righteousness?
Respect for coming to our own conclusions is meaningless if we ignore how they are formed. Imagine two people who watch an opinion show on cable news and hear a conclusion. One person just repeats that opinion; however, the second to verify that conclusion at multiple sources, does some research, and thinks critically about it, and then comes to the same conclusion. Are both of these conclusions respectable? On the surface, these people agree, but in fact one person's opinion is more valid because they can defend it in a way that the other cannot.
I don't disagree with anyone's right to have their own conclusions, but it's an odd right to exercise in a vacuum - like pooping in the middle of a hiking trail. I will consistently defend reason and respectfully rebuke fallacious thinking when confronted with it.
