Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
johnr9q
Sport climber
Sacramento, Ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Nov 12, 2011 - 12:39pm PT
|
Currently the National Park Service is asking for suggestions for the Merced River Development. I suggest everyone go to the following website and describe what they feel Yosemite Valley should be in the future: http://www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/mrp.htm
My suggestions for implementing the Merced River Plan:
1. Remove most of the improvements in the Valley to an area outside the valley.
2. A Common Area, possibly in Foresta, would be developed outside the Valley that would have all the commercial enterprises that are currently in the valley such as restaurants, shops, grocery stores, Hotel/motel lodging, RV camping and employee housing.
3. Car camping would be allowed in the existing campgrounds (and additional camping might be built). Campers would leave their cars outside the valley in the Common Area. Campers would load their camping equipment in large boxes that would be shuttled to a campground entrance where they would be off loaded onto carts. The campers would take the carts to their campsites. All RV's would camp in a campground in the Common Area or campgrounds outside the Valley.
4. Remove all Hotel/Motel lodging to the Common Area. The Awanee hotel would either be abandoned and left to decay gracefully or moved to the Common Area or another area outside the Valley.
5. All utilities would be removed from the Valley. All toilets would be pit (much better for the environment) All water would be carried in by users. No electricity would be needed.
6. No private vehicles would be allowed in the Valley but a comprehensive shuttle service would be available.
7. Additional trails would be developed to interesting sights to disperse people.
8. Bicycle trails would be developed to encourage people to get around the valley by bicycle. One possibility would be a trail that goes all the way around the valley staying as close to the escarpments as possible.
9. The following doesn't have anything to do with the Merced River Plan but I will include it anyway. The cables on Half Dome are so backed up because the walking surface is difficult to use. Currently there are 2x4 boards approximately every 10' (as I recall) and this makes it scary for some to go up. if the boards were placed every 18 inches I think access would be much easier and people would move quicker.
|
|
squishy
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2011 - 12:44pm PT
|
oh yeah, that's all way feasible...and cheap to pull off...
That would all take like 50 years and who would pay for it? not to mention those living in foresta would be pretty pissed off...you know there is a cemetery and Indian stuff in foresta as well don't you?
|
|
johnr9q
Sport climber
Sacramento, Ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 12, 2011 - 12:56pm PT
|
Squishy: Ignore feasibility and cost and describe how you would like Yosemite Valley to look in the future. There are a bunch of people out there that are saying they want a bunch of additional development in the Valley headed toward the Disneyland style so I think it important to have voices in the other direction.
|
|
squishy
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2011 - 01:00pm PT
|
I think it should look just like it did in 1850, but I know that's impossible. It will only need to grow with the weight of future generations flocking to see it. Maybe they should just charge 100 bucks a person like Disney land or a ski resort, that would be a good start...keep it exactly the way it is and prepare to fend off the crowds...make every line longer, make every traffic jam worse, make people not want to go, make it such a pain in the ass that people will begin walking and riding their bikes just to get there again..
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2011 - 01:01pm PT
|
There are a bunch of people out there that are saying they want a bunch of additional development in the Valley headed toward the Disneyland style so I think it important to have voices in the other direction.
How do you know this?
|
|
Dave
Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2011 - 01:41pm PT
|
I want a french-style telepherique to the top of half dome.
It'll reduce fatalities on the cables, too.
|
|
Byran
climber
Merced, CA
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2011 - 01:49pm PT
|
Zip-line from top of Half Dome to base of El Cap
|
|
johnr9q
Sport climber
Sacramento, Ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 12, 2011 - 01:49pm PT
|
John Moosie: How do I know this? I read all the comments from the last input that was requested by the park service. Also I know this because I've been to the valley and observed the overdevelopment which doesn't come about unless people request it by their feet or their money. Also, cause I'm a very smart fellow.
|
|
Larry
Trad climber
Bisbee
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2011 - 04:23pm PT
|
I'm on board with all your suggestions, but for the last one.
I'm undecided as to whether the Half Dome cables should be left as-is or removed entirely.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2011 - 04:48pm PT
|
I think all private AND public motorized transportation should be removed. No cars, no shuttle. Just bikes and hikes. Oh except for me, I'd like a lifetime pass for my car ONLY. And free lifetime accommodations and food and booze at the Awahnee.
And the zip line too.
|
|
Spider Savage
Mountain climber
The shaggy fringe of Los Angeles
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2011 - 04:53pm PT
|
Everything he said above but also add a motocross track at El Cap Meadows.
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2011 - 04:56pm PT
|
I think it should look just like it did in 1850
yeah, all indians and no white people.
i share your doubts that this is an actionable political agenda in the current electoral climate.
|
|
CF
climber
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2011 - 05:13pm PT
|
There are a bunch of people out there that are saying they want a bunch of additional development in the Valley headed toward the Disneyland style so I think it important to have voices in the other direction.
I have talked to a few folks involved in the planning and they said that there are comments more towards both ends and not in the middle.
Many of the comments are coming from special interest groups and not the typical family trying to use and enjoy Yosemite.
It is existential that folks comment on this plan and any Yosemite Plan such as the Tenaya Lake Plan.
I read the Merced River Plan and there is mention of Day Use Permits, a mention of the the 12 acre parking area at the base of Lost Brother (this is from the last valley plan) / check in / be bused if you do not have a lodging/reservation reservation parking area which will have to have all utilities brought over from north side drive, as in across the river, and different proposed camping areas, and all turnouts will be delineated or eliminated.
On the Tioga Road rebuild scheduled for this summer, a 2+ year project, it says all turnouts will be delineated or eliminated. It does not specify which ones but it is possible that many turnouts we now use for climbing/hiking/enjoyment will be eliminated.
The Tenaya Lake plan has mention of the same thing and possible build out of parking lots in areas that have not seen development (Murphy Creek area and west) while eliminating existing parking areas, go figure!
|
|
Sierra Ledge Rat
Social climber
Retired to Appalachia
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2011 - 06:18pm PT
|
Currently the National Park Service is asking for suggestions for the Merced River Development. I suggest everyone go to the following website and describe what they feel Yosemite Valley should be in the future: blah, blah, blah....
Oh, you mean just like the 1980 General Management Plan?
The problem is that the Natianal Park Service won't implement anything other than the status quo. They are asking your opinion so that they can ignore you.
We have been down this road over and over and the only thing that happens is the situation in the Valley gets worse and worse and more and more developed.
Take a look at the 1980 General Management Plan. The emphasis was supposed to shift towards preservation of the resource instead of exploitation of the resource because of the huge increase of visitors and the huge impact.
Instead, the NPS just ignored everything, bulldozed mroe parking lots in the forest, developed more commercial enterprises, and replaced non-commercial areas (like the old Yosemite Lodge commons) with commercial spaces (like the Mountain Room bar).
I advocate violent revolution.
|
|
Spider Savage
Mountain climber
The shaggy fringe of Los Angeles
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2011 - 07:20pm PT
|
I disagree with Ledge Rat that things have been getting worse.
(seriously now)
I've been visiting Yosemite Valley multiple times a year for a few decades and I see the following improvements:
1. 2 less drive-in campgrounds and less campsites in some existing campgrounds resulting in more free natural valley floor to wander in solitude.
2. The mirror lake area is now nice. When I first visited in the 1980s it was like a large gravel and dirt area where cars turned around.
3. Yosemite falls area near the Lodge is much nicer with good facilities. What was once a parking lot full of buses is now a meadow.
4. The Lodge has a smaller foot print.
5. Curry Village has a smaller foot print.
6. Public transportation is good.
Things that have gotten worse:
1. Traffic. Best to drive in off-hours, park your car and don't touch it until you need to leave. The leave in the off hours. Traffic has been constricted into what seems to be a diabolical plan to make people never want to return.
2. Parking lot near the Village, is an expansion of the Village footprint but easily reclaimed. (I think reclaiming it is in some plan or something.)
3. Employee housing condos west of Curry Village. If you had to do it, this was an okay area but is fairly unsafe due to potential rockfall.
Any future plans should:
A. Steadily reduce human impact and the footprint of services.
B. Steadily increase visitors. (Accompanied by an increase in their understanding and support of preservation of the area.)
I think most people can't think with point B but it's vital to increasing support for preservation.
|
|
Jacemullen
Trad climber
Oceanside
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2011 - 11:09am PT
|
Someone has been reading their Edward Abbey.
|
|
Prod
Trad climber
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2011 - 11:37am PT
|
The OP wants to make everything more natural, and harder to access, except 1/2 Dome, which he wants to make easier to summit via the cables route by adding steps every 18".
Anyone else find that funny on a "Climbers Forum"?
Prod.
|
|
cms
climber
toyota, tacoma
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2011 - 11:51am PT
|
yeah that sounds good.
puff, puff, pass.
|
|
phylp
Trad climber
Millbrae, CA
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2011 - 01:08pm PT
|
John,
You say: There are a bunch of people out there that are saying they want a bunch of additional development in the Valley headed toward the Disneyland style.
I recently participated in an informational meeting in San Francisco about this plan led by an Access Fund representative. In preparation for the meeting, I downloaded and read through the Merced River plan. It is a very comprehensive document loaded with very specific suggestions for each segment of the River, and an area for you to comment on these suggestions and to add your own ideas, and your own vision for the Valley.
When I asked the Access Fund rep how many people typically read these documents prepared for the public and send their comments back to the gov, he said "a couple of hundred".
A couple of hundred. There are at least that many people who post to this site who proclaim their love for the Valley.
So if there are a "bunch of people" saying they want Disneyland in the Valley, and there are not "a bunch of people" who are representing more the climber's and wilderness lover's view, then why? Are they too lazy to do the work of actually reading and responding to the plan, or do they feel hopeless that it will matter?
I don't go to the Valley more than once every few years these days. I cannot stand the car congestion and the cloud of smoke that seems ever present in the campgrounds. Yet I sent my comments in, because the Valley is one of the most amazing climbing destinations on the planet, and I'd love to see the experience improve for this new generation of climbers. I have no idea if it will make a difference, but I'm glad I did it.
It might interest you that in the area where they ask if you have a central vision for the Park, I put something like " Less of a resort-like environment and amenities and more emphasis on measures that enhance enjoyment of the attributes that make Yosemite UNIQUE - unequaled scenic beauty and world class rock climbing".
I put forward a lot of specific ideas but re-hashing that laundry list here serves no purpose. I'd just like to encourage people to look at the plan and send in their own feedback.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!