Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Melissa
Gym climber
berkeley, ca
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2012 - 10:03pm PT
|
Thanks for posting those, CF. Is "El Cap Crossover" the current turn from the S. Side/Spires approach area?
What's a comfort station?
|
|
tom Carter
Social climber
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2012 - 10:10pm PT
|
Thanks very much Chris.
How about we get rid of the Ranger housing east of Yosemite falls. Its a beautiful area and would make for nice picnic grounds?
Hope the parking lots are of the same standard as the Curry lot!!!
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 12:28am PT
|
The tunnels or overpasses at Camp 6 and the falls are welcome and a great idea.
The rest of the plan is madness and we need to resist.
What's the deal with protecting a little grass in El Cap Meadow where people can sit in nature while cutting down trees and creating a huge disturbance across the river by constructing a parking lot!?
It's helpful to know that this is part of implementing a traffic plan which calls for a manned multilane traffic checkpoint at El Cap crossover. Imagine the sound of cars and busses idleing when you're on EL Cap or Cathedral, not to mention the constant Car alarms going off like we already hear from the apron and Serenity Crack.
Reducing the Wawona campground? Why must NPS continually reduce camping. The last resort of the low income and the true close to nature experience? There is a conflict of interest when the NPS gets much money as a direct percentage of Concession revenue.
Grrr. There's a lot of people in NPS who want to write some significant envronmental sounding change on their resume but haven't put in the time in the park to understand the situation.
Fact, the US economy is sucking wind and will continue to suck. The money to implement the very expensive transportation plan which calls for satellite parking areas and day use shuttle busses for most park areas (and thus no turnouts) will never come to pass because the money won't be available.
Eliminating pull-outs is murder for climbers. This is IMPORTANT. It a pie in the sky view of visitation. And Bad for the environment as it concentrates impact around the shuttle stops (which will have fences around them everywhere so your Yosemite visit becomes completely paved or boardwalked under your feet)
The impacts as they are now are acceptable. This is really about people who want to make change to make a name for themselves
peace
karl
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 12:36am PT
|
Eliminating pull-outs is murder for climbers. This is IMPORTANT. It a pie in the sky view of visitation. And Bad for the environment as it concentrates impact around the shuttle stops (which will have fences around them everywhere so your Yosemite visit becomes completely paved or boardwalked under your feet)
+1
John
|
|
Clint Cummins
Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 12:53am PT
|
> Is "El Cap Crossover" the current turn from the S. Side/Spires approach area?
Yes.
> What's a comfort station?
Bathroom.
I think a parking lot would be OK there.
It's already non-quiet up on El Cap just from cars on the regular road and from the Green Dragon.
But would any tourists really use it?
Only during gridlock conditions?
Or would it cause more gridlock, by reserving one of the 2 lanes from there to Curry Village for buses and rangers?
I'm not a traffic engineer, but it seems like reserving one lane adds to congestion.
Maybe there are some data on this, from weekends where it was done vs. was not done?
I like the roundabout concept, but I'm not sure there is enough space at the 4x intersection at the Village, unless the road is moved to the south near the intersection.
Tunnel or bike overpass at Lower Falls - I'd rather see a stoplight.
Many would hate to see that, but it's lower impact than a bike overpass.
Having a person there directing traffic also works very well; it just needs to be done more often.
Fence around El Cap Meadow and boardwalks - not justified. Way too much impact. The tiny trails on the meadow seem to grow back fairly well each winter/spring. I suppose that might change if new new parking lot appears and people use El Cap Meadow more.
|
|
Clint Cummins
Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 12:56am PT
|
Chaz and Mike.,
> Are these the same people who claimed they couldn't justify the expense of a god damned trash can in El Cap Meadow?
>
> Yes, Chaz. People waiting for the bus will continue to make a mess of that area, and climbers will justifiably continue to use the bear boxes for trash.
Actually, there have been trashcans at the El Cap Meadow bridge bearboxes since July 2010 (unless something changed). Thanks to Jesse.
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=1204340&tn=40
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 01:12am PT
|
Thanks for the update!
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 04:01am PT
|
I know no major change will happen in my lifetime, and I'm not really all that old. The NEPA/litigation process alone would take 10 years if they adopted any of these proposed changes tomorrow. Basically the only thing they've done since the flood is build that new nice shitter by the falls.
What I would like to see is a f*#king updated guidebook.
|
|
dfinnecy
Social climber
'stralia
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 04:55am PT
|
I still like that 'no cars, period' idea that surfaces every once in awhile. So many problems would go away.
Ranger Rick: Thanks for visiting Yosemite. Park here, the shuttle will be here in 15 minutes to take you into the valley.
Common Touron(includes a lot of climbers):Oh, uh, I can't drive in? Who will carry my generator? What about my propane fridge? Lame! Back to the mall/gym for me.
[Peace spreads, chaos consolidated]
|
|
CF
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 14, 2012 - 11:22am PT
|
At the meeting it was asked where would the money come from and when would this be implemented? The plan is to be finalized fall of 2013 and if there is no lawsuit, etc the planners said that they had funding already in place for much of the plan.
This will happen very soon.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 12:31pm PT
|
This is sort of the funding problem. They have funding to do stuff like remove turnouts but not the funding to expand shuttle routes and make them run early morning and late night.
That's how a lot of the parking issues in the valley started. They take out the parking lot at the falls and replace it with nothing.
So you get half a plan implemented which has negative consequences.
Fatty, I'll take the "NPS resume slander" out of the comments I already made on the thread and email to you
Peace
karl
|
|
cleo
Social climber
the canyon below the Ditch!!!!
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 12:31pm PT
|
I think they are eliminating non-official turnouts (dirt). Existing paved turnouts with a curb are to remain ... is my understanding.
Personally, I prefer the idea of roadside parking over giant parking lots. So I commented on the plan to that effect... you should too!
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 12:35pm PT
|
If an honest cost/benefit analysis was done on eliminating pullouts would
there be any doubt? Such an analysis would presumably include the noxious
diesel emissions of doing such stupidity.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 12:50pm PT
|
I believe that the designation of the Merced River under the National Wild & Scenic Rivers act (see http://www.rivers.gov/); requires a plan. http://www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/mrp.htm
http://www.rivers.gov/publications/act/100-149.pdf
(d) (1) For rivers designated on or after January 1, 1986, the Federal agency charged with
the administration of each component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System
shall prepare a comprehensive management plan for such river segment to provide for
the protection of the river values. The plan shall address resource protection,
development of lands and facilities, user capacities, and other management practices
necessary or desirable to achieve the purposes of this Act. The plan shall be coordinated
with and may be incorporated into resource management planning for affected adjacent
Federal lands. The plan shall be prepared, after consultation with State and local
governments and the interested public within 3 full fiscal years after the date of
designation. Notice of the completion and availability of such plans shall be published
in the Federal Register.
I underlined the phrase "user capacities" which has been a major issue with the Yosemite plan, and is an obvious tension with the Act, that it seeks to preserve a valued "natural resource" often requiring reduced access.
SECTION 10.
(a) Each component of the national wild and scenic rivers system shall be administered in
such manner as to protect and enhance the values which caused it to be included in said
system without, insofar as is consistent therewith, limiting other uses that do not substantially
interfere with public use and enjoyment of these values. In such administration primary
emphasis shall be given to protecting its esthetic, scenic, historic, archaeologic, and scientific
features. Management plans for any such component may establish varying degrees of
intensity for its protection and development, based on the special attributes of the area.
(b) Any portion of a component of the national wild and scenic rivers system that is within
the national wilderness preservation system, as established by or pursuant to the Act of
September 3, 1964 (78 Stat. 890; 16 U.S.C., ch. 23), shall be subject to the provisions of both
the Wilderness Act and this Act with respect to preservation of such river and its immediate
environment, and in case of conflict between the provisions of these Acts the more restrictive
provisions shall apply.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 12:57pm PT
|
Here's what I wrote Fatty. Comments or adjustments might be helpful
Regarding proposed plan ideas
The tunnels or overpasses at Camp 6 and the falls are welcome and a great idea.
The El Cap Meadow is a place where people have historically sat on the grass and enjoyed the view. Boardwalks aren't an acceptable alternative to that. The grass grows back every year and the environment isn't heavily affected so why build boardwalks which permanently destroy the grass they cover?
A parking lot at El Cap crossover would create a much greater environmental impact and adversely affect the experience of Climbers on El Cap and Cathedral with the view disrupted and many car alarms going off. This parking lot might only make sense in tandem with the very unwelcome plan to put a multi-lane traffic check-point at the crossover with day use shuttles from satellite parking lots. The economy and budget will not support this in the foreseeable future. I think it solves little and creates great hassle for everybody but if NPS insists on it, it should all happen at once. There are plenty of parking areas which could be created in old campgrounds or former employee housing areas like the annex where impact and civilization are already concentrated. There is too much of a trend of large areas of the impacted valley just becoming zones of wasteland and construction material storage and staging areas.
Reducing the Wawona campground? Why must NPS continually reduce camping? The last resort of the low income and the true close to nature experience? There is a conflict of interest when the NPS gets much money as a direct percentage of Concession revenue and reduces inexpensive options while retaining the most expensive accommodations. Having Campgrounds in 100 year flood planes is not a problem as the infrastructure of tables and fire pits can handle being inundated. Camping in the park is one of the cherished historical experiences in national parks. Its better for people to stay in the valley than come in via cars each day from El Portal hotels.
Eliminating pull-outs is very bad for climbers. It a limited view of visitation And bad for the environment as it concentrates impact around the shuttle stops (which will have fences around them everywhere so a Yosemite visit becomes completely paved or boardwalked under your feet)
The impacts as they are now are acceptable. The compacting of a little earth around pullouts from people's use is insignificant relative to the scale of a park the size of Rhode Island. It's only an issue for peoples visual perspective and if they can't pull over to explore those areas, the visual pristine quality would be irrelevant anyway,
The current trend of roping and fencing off areas of meadow and river to keep people from actually being IN nature rather than observing it from behind barriers is unfortunate. It significantly reduces visitor experience, concentrates visitors into areas which are then perceived as crowded, and visitors who insist on being in a natural place just create new impacts in areas that are not yet fenced.
Day use permits may be an acceptable solution on those FEW days when visitation is so excessive as to create real problems.
The Ice Rink is a historical use in the park and it's location is use by Rafting in the summer anyway.
The Stables are also a historical use but I'd support their removal as I feel excrement on the trails severely impacts the experience of hikers and contributes to environmental impacts as well
Thanks for consideration
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 01:01pm PT
|
Nicely put Karl. You have my proxy.
ps
I hope there is a provision in the plan to turn Harley riders around at the
entrance or make them park and walk. Noise pollution should be high on the list.
|
|
CF
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 14, 2012 - 03:21pm PT
|
I think they are eliminating non-official turnouts (dirt). Existing paved turnouts with a curb are to remain ... is my understanding.
Personally, I prefer the idea of roadside parking over giant parking lots. So I commented on the plan to that effect... you should too!
"Removing all Turnouts/Roadside Parking" in favor of parking lots was mentioned at the meeting, but dont quote me on that!
|
|
Peter Haan
Trad climber
San Francisco, CA
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 04:08pm PT
|
Tami and I have been working on the sanitary sewer engineering for the Nose but did not get it completed before deadline on this current round of proposals to the general plan. We have been quite concerned that the route still only has makeshift outhouses and similarly, no turnouts. The route, as popular as it is and being a speedway, clearly should have at least four turnouts in the interest of public safety and at least halfway rational traffic design.
Splicing onto the mains in the North Drive will be easy; the challenging parts are reducing water hammer on such a tall design and it is generally expected that the trenching is not going to be as easy as initially hoped and given the topography some of the larger natural features may have to be reduced and graded down to surrounding planes or eliminated altogether. Tami's calculations are showing so far the Great Roof, the summit overhangs and El Cap Tower as being areas of particularly challenging shape to trench past while maintaining the overall plan. It might well turnout that several vaults below grade will be required for a few of these transitions if it turns out that public resistance to feature reduction is particularly successful.
Venting for the sewer array will be sited just left of the final roofs and well before the Muir on the left, then run up to sloping ground and terminated in a 10 ft vent riser and mast as per code. A final soil pipe branch in parallel will attach to the six new separate men's and women's bathrooms up there arrayed across the summit top outs for the all the front routes as well. (Only those routes Iron Hawk to Cosmos will have summit comfort stations--- all that the budget was showing possible so far, sorry)
Our plan worked phenomenally well last year on the Great White Book and bodes really well for this new El Capitan improvement, all things being equal of course. Here is the trenching phase of the Tenaya Lake/Great White book project. Note it is about mid-way through in here in this image from August, 2010:
|
|
yosemite 5.9
climber
santa cruz
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 05:47pm PT
|
Roundabouts are zippy when traffic is light. But that is not when you need a solution. When traffic is heavy, everybody gets stalled in the roundabout. nobody keeps the interstection open like at a 4 way.
At least at a 4 way, if drivers keep the intersection open, then the lighter cross traffice can get across. But in a roundabout, everyone gets stuck.
The city of Santa Cruz spent $1 million installing one last year based on some consultant's expensive advice of course. What a bad idea and a waste of taxpayer money. When the tourists come on the weekends the solution is now worse than the problem ever was.
A walkway over the road by Yosemite Lodge would be better because the pedestrian traffic there is what really backs up the traffic for a long ways. Stairs would be fine. It doesn't need to be a ramp. Bicyclists and people who could not climb the stairs could still cross the street, but it would be less disrupting of the flow of traffic if most people climbed the stairs instead of waiting. Anyway, that is an idea to consider. I might be wrong.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 07:17pm PT
|
Tunnel is way better than an over bridge for pedestrians at Camp 6 and the Falls. The height of Busses and RVs make the height of an overpass rather intrusive.
Roundabout would require way too much room and get hinky with confused tourists who would stop right in the middle. The trams and long busses would also create an issue in sorting out round about traffic.
Peace
Karl
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!