Sleeping in cars allowed at Lafayette Place?

[DayTrip]

The Roadside Parking on Rt. 2 really ought to be shut down much like Franconia Notch. It is not only dangerous but the impact to the trails is prolific. Hopefully someone does not get seriously injured before that happens. Something tells me that all of those cars were not empty the night before either. The AMC really ought to man up and shuttle their guests over from Pinkham and or The Highland Center. As should be the case also at Lonesome and The Bridal Path.

While also totally insane, I don't find Rte 2 as dangerous or unwieldy because the road and shoulder is a lot wider and it is dead straight for miles. I think the hazard in Franconia Notch is exacerbated by the narrower lanes, numerous curves, and tourist stops along the way with merging cars, people trying to cut across the median, etc. I don't know that Rte 2 needs to be fixed in the same way despite the huge volume of cars.

The impact of that volume on the trails however is another conversation entirely...

 

[DayTrip]

For me it comes down to the Letter of the Law vs. the Spirit of the Law. I fully recognize that I'm breaking the law. People have provided some good reasons here why the law is in place (human waste, avoiding a tailgate/party situation and the leave-no-trace issues it entails). But when I'm parking there I'm just pulling in and going to sleep. I try to be a good steward as I would anytime I'm at the trailhead. So while I may not be following the letter of the law my being there affects no one else so I don't have a problem doing it when the situation warrants.

I tend to agree with this approach too (and have zero issues with you sleeping in your car as you described). But not everyone arrives at the same conclusions of Letter vs Spirit. What you might find as acceptable and not bothering anyone and my interpretation of the same scenario may be completely different. Who decides what is "right"? At some point a line needs to be drawn that needs to be respected by all regardless of our points of view but which represents the majority of affected people. That's one of the compromises of living in a society at large so we can all get along. When enough people do not agree with where the line is we can always redraw it. Things change. Information changes. Not always as nice and tidy as this oftentimes obviously.

 

[skiguy]

While also totally insane, I don't find Rte 2 as dangerous or unwieldy because the road and shoulder is a lot wider and it is dead straight for miles. I think the hazard in Franconia Notch is exacerbated by the narrower lanes, numerous curves, and tourist stops along the way with merging cars, people trying to cut across the median, etc. I don't know that Rte 2 needs to be fixed in the same way despite the huge volume of cars.

The impact of that volume on the trails however is another conversation entirely...

I see your logic. But wider and straighter means faster driving speeds well above the speed limit. It is a breakdown lane and a buffer and designed to be a road. Not a parking lot. It is intertwined with impact as the designed and designated parking for the use area is just that. Limiting in itself as far as impact. If we fail to enforce those limitations, we all lose. Not to mention again someone getting injured. Enforcement is a big issue because of lack of manpower and funds. But we need to do something to preserve our trails. Money is not flowing out the wazoo for trail work in itself, but we do have other parameters already in place like parking lots that could be managed to help alleviate environmental impact on the trails themselves.

 

[DayTrip]

I see your logic. But wider and straighter means faster driving speeds well above the speed limit. It is a breakdown lane and a buffer and designed to be a road. Not a parking lot. It is intertwined with impact as the designed and designated parking for the use area is just that. Limiting in itself as far as impact. If we fail to enforce those limitations, we all lose. Not to mention again someone getting injured. Enforcement is a big issue because of lack of manpower and funds. But we need to do something to preserve our trails. Money is not flowing out the wazoo for trail work in itself, but we do have other parameters already in place like parking lots that could be managed to help alleviate environmental impact on the trails themselves.

I see your point as well. And this whole side thread is really two topics: roadside safety and overuse of trail networks. While intertwined, these are two different problems. For example, Appalachia is a crowded lot but I think safer overall and there is a much more substantial trail network accessible there, unlike Franconia where everyone is essentially doing the exact same thing. And while most people are using the same trails out of Appalachia (Valley Way and Airline) there are many options to spread out the use. And in the Notch, how much hiker traffic was reduced by preventing parking but busing many of those same people in from a different location? The buses are safer but don't really address over use or head count. That's another problem.

Incidentally, I went up the Skook FRI night and stayed on the ridge overnight. Still ran into about 15 people despite it being nearly dark. (None of which came up the Skook)

 

[peakbagger]

My observations of RT2 accidents are that they are rarely excessive speed during typical summer conditions, most accidents are drivers drifting off the road late at night or excessive speed in winter conditions. The state had proposed milling the fog and centerlines to keep drivers attentive, but I think it was put on hold due to abutting property owners objecting as those milled grooves tend to be a significant noise issue for those within quite a distance of the highway (easily a 1/4 mile or more). The state did triple the number of guardrails along the realigned sections of the highway in the last 3 years including the stretch near Appalachia. (Raven got his own private opening in the guardrail for his driveway) The current 10 year plan has another section of RT2 being realigned from the Randolph Jefferson line west to the Stone Fire tower area starting in 2023, I expect this encouraged the popular Waterwheel Restaurant to list the business as I expect post project his parking is going to be substantially reduced with the realignment. No doubt the last section in western Randolph to the Jefferson line will get its due in the future although the section in Jefferson Highlands is probably in competition for the next stretch.

Generally, the cars parking along the highway near Appalachia tend to be parked in the dirt on the very wide shoulder. When I go by in the early AM there will be a smattering in cars parked along the road but rarely if ever do I see campers overnight on the highway, they tend to park in the evening in the main lot when there is plenty of room. Hut guests tend to arrive later in the day when the lots are full of day hikers and many hut guests have to park along the highway. Note if you look at old maps of the area before the new RT 2 was built to bypass Durand Road (formerly RT 2), the trails were not as concentrated as the hub of trails was Ravine Lodge on Durand Road. When RT 2 was relocated to its current location several main trails were cut off and rerouted to Appalachia to create one large parking lot and central trailhead. The Appalachia lot is now 60 plus years old and is in need of expansion. Compare its size to the recent new Crawford Path lot or the recent new Ammo lot and Appalachia is smaller despite very similar support of a popular AMC hut and large cluster of popular trails.

The USFS fee lots did make a big dent in parking issues 20 years ago, many lots were built, improved or enlarged and some lots even got outhouses. Unfortunately much of the fee money was offset by budget cuts in other areas of local budget so the effort was slowed. User fees work if managed correctly. It also does not help that the FS bureaucracy seems to inflate the costs of projects several times over what could be done privately so the dollars do not stretch very far.