Bandit Posted June 26, 2004 Share Posted June 26, 2004 MRNP needs to open up the West Side Road to take pressure off Paradise and Sunrise. This side of the mountain is literally untouched. I know, some of you will get up in arms about wrecking your wilderness experience. Well, I say, make more of the mountain accessable and spread out the crowds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlofgren Posted June 26, 2004 Share Posted June 26, 2004 I agree completely. However, I know that rebuilding the upper culvert would take a big chunk of change. But I don't understand their mentality regarding some of the other options. They're not listening. At the public meetings they held re. the new management plan the vast majority of the participants urged them to do exactly that: do all they can to open up other areas to take the pressure off Paradise and Sunrise. Not new areas. But like open up the Mowich road earlier (the road was snow-free for at least two weeks before they opened it last year) and the West Side road. All they did was smile and steaksauce their heads and give some excuses for the WSR. Grrrr. Â Hey Mike - if you catch this thread - can you give us a name and number to contact to voice our desire regarding the Mowich Road, at least? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bandit Posted June 26, 2004 Author Share Posted June 26, 2004 I've mountain biked the West Side Road many times. It is an incredible area. The money MRNP has already spent on that road in years past (IE: The stone walls on sharp corners, the bridge at St Andrews Cabin, and the general work just to create the road itself) is money wasted in my opinion. I would be glad to pay a surcharge to fix the culvert at the washed out creek. With some engineering , the road could probably be rerouted to minimize further damage. This option I feel is going to be needed in the near future to minimize crowds at Paradise and Sunrise. DL, you bring up a good point about Mowich Lk Rd. Open it up, get the flow going and quit being so hard headed. It's our NP, open it up so we can enjoy it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figger_Eight Posted June 26, 2004 Share Posted June 26, 2004 This side of the mountain is literally untouched. Â And there needs to be parts of the mountain that stay that way. Open it up? It IS open...no one limits your access back there - you simply have to expend more energy than backing up your RV into a parking spot halfway up the mountain to get there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redoubt Posted June 26, 2004 Share Posted June 26, 2004 It's our NP, open it up so we can enjoy it. Just curious, do you feel the same way about North Cascades National Park? A trail up Access Creek to Luna Col to make Fury more accessable? A new bridge over the Chilliwack and rebuild the Easy Ridge trail to make it easier to get to Perfect Pass and Challenger? Both of these would very likely take some heat off of Boston Basin and other heavily used areas. And if the West Side Road did not exist, would you be in favor of building a new road in that area to "open it up so we can enjoy it?"  I'm not trying to be contentious as much as to point out that this is obviously (I think) a tough balancing act. Some of us do value a wilderness experience, and it's getting harder to find as more and more people are seeking the same. Keeping some areas hard to reach, and having quotas in popular areas, are really the only things that will make that experience at all available in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark_Husbands Posted June 26, 2004 Share Posted June 26, 2004 Has anyone bothered to review the new MNRP general management plan? one of the provisions is opening the westside road to shuttle only traffic. among other upsides is that the park doesnt need to worry about a bunch of private vehicles getting stuck out there after the next washout. as for reducing pressure on paradise, it wont. most paradise visitors go there because of the services and well developed trails. nor are there climbing routes on that side that will vie with DC for ease or facilities. even with the addition of shuttle access, i would expect use to remain low density. paradise will be high density. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hohm Posted June 26, 2004 Share Posted June 26, 2004 How about an aerial tramway up to Camp Hazard? That would take some much needed pressure from DC, and make it much easier to enjoy the NP experience. More folks could get that "Sound of Music" feeling... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bandit Posted June 26, 2004 Author Share Posted June 26, 2004 Honestly , they should open up MRNP to heli skiing. I think my point was totally missed on The WSR. Here it is again. There is a road already established. Tons of money have already been spent on its construction. Make it easier physically? I'm not making that point. Make it more accesible, therefore spreading out the crowds. MRNP is easily reached and will continue to be crowded. Why not spread out the people? That's all I'm saying. If you want solitude then travel mid-week and quit being a weekend warrior. Better yet, go to Alaska if you want untouched mountains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted June 26, 2004 Share Posted June 26, 2004 Would anybody disagree to a cars only access road? No RVs, no tours, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark_Husbands Posted June 26, 2004 Share Posted June 26, 2004 my point was that there is a sort of compromise plan to open westside road, but that it wont spread out the crowds in any meaningful way. it will provide easier access for some backpackers and climbers, but will not shift use from the very high density areas--because those users are vehicle and facility dependent. Â MRNP has areas of high visitation, but the overwhelming majority of the park is low density. I think this is good. it provides diverse opportunities. also, studies suggest that certain common recreation impacts on natural resources, e.g impacts to vegetation around campsites, increased trail width, occurs mostly at initial levels of use, then stabalizes in an "impacted condition". by spreading backcountry use you tend to get a homogenous, impacted conditions everywhere. i personally think a better course is to allow high levels of use to occur in sites like paradise, and to mange for condition that can realistically be provided there, and to manage for pristine conditions where use is currently light. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bandit Posted June 26, 2004 Author Share Posted June 26, 2004 Why build a road and not use it? The road is there in good condition except for the washout. You will get a certain type of person on the WSR, no doubt. Why not make it user friendly? Why put all the pressure on Paradise? The MRNP is always crying about funding. Well, then be proactive. Build a visitor center at the end of the WSR so the lookie loos can have a place to buy a burger and coke. By opening up the WSR you create choices for the people. They should open up the Mowich Road earlier too. Like I said, MRNP belongs to the people, not the park rangers, not RMI, and not the federal government. There is a Marine Memorial that a lot of veterans would like to visit. Most of them can't hop on a mountain bike and cruise up the WSR. That is another reason they should open up that road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redoubt Posted June 26, 2004 Share Posted June 26, 2004 Build a visitor center at the end of the WSR so the lookie loos can have a place to buy a burger and coke. This thread just jumped the shark. Big time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 Why build a road and not use it? The road is there in good condition except for the washout. Â Roads aren't a one-time expense. Your question should be "Why build a road and not pay for its annual maintenance cost?" Maybe there was money once, but there isn't much now. MRNP has already raised the climbing fee, why ask them for more fee increases to fund an unnecessary project? Â I don't know what it's like in the context of national parks or similar scenic areas, but opening more roads has been shown to merely increase traffic on those roads, not necessarily draw traffic away from other roads. Â I sure don't want to see a damn burger stand at Mowich Lake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 They should open up the Mowich Road earlier too. Letting roads rest for a little bit after snow melt decreases the maintenance costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swaterfall Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 In my extremely limited experience in MRNP I liked the WSR exactly the way it is. Except I wish it was more of a trail than a road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SublimeSalamander Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 When was the last time WSR was open? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad_A Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 There's so many projects and repairs that the NPS can't pay for, as it is, that repairing and maintaining that culvert would never make it to the discussion. Never mind the lack of funds for another "visitor center". Â The WSR is fine the way it is. It's NICE to be able to go to a corner of the park, and not see the crowds of Paradise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bandit Posted June 27, 2004 Author Share Posted June 27, 2004 Once a road is put in, what is the annual cost of up keep? Minimal. Especially a gravel road. What? Drive the road grader up and down a couple of times? That's going to cost and arm and a leg. Let's face it people, no one uses that road right now. So let's just preserve it for the spotted owl, bear, squirrels, deer, elk and racoons. It's ironic that people bitch and complain about over crowding in MRNP, but don't want to do a damn thing about it. Just keep waiting in those long lines to get in the park. And keep paying those increased fees, but don't try to make improvements to "Your" park to make things more accessable and fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 (edited) $7,184,124,103  road maintenance backlog in us on national forests  382,000  # of FS road miles Edited June 27, 2004 by Winter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark_Husbands Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 you are out of luck "bandit"  here's what's really in the works...  General Management Plan  The Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement and General Management Plan (FEIS/GMP) for Mount Rainier National Park has been approved. Under the new General Management Plan, park managers will improve stewardship of park resources while continuing to provide a range of high-quality visitor experiences. Most of the park (97%) is designated wilderness and will continue to be managed according to the provisions of the Wilderness Act. Most of the structures within the park are listed on the National Register of Historic Places and will be preserved for public use and enjoyment in their historical character. The primary goals of the new General Management Plan are to better manage peak-period visitation so that it does not adversely affect park resources and visitor experiences.  Key elements of the plan include the following: Establish a visitor carrying capacity framework and use it to ensure the preservation of park resources and the quality of the visitor experience. Phase in shuttle services in coordination with elimination of overflow parking to reduce traffic congestion and ensure effective visitor transportation within the park; provide shuttle service to various locations in the park, such as Longmire/Paradise, Westside Road, Sunrise, Mowich Lake, and Carbon River. Provide additional opportunities for visitors to use the park in the summer and winter, including: providing shuttles on the Westside Road, providing new picnic sites, improving interpretive facilities, and establishing or improving snow-parks for winter visitors. Replace the Henry M. Jackson Memorial Visitor Center at Paradise with a smaller, more efficient visitor center and reconfigure the parking area for shuttles. Improve the visitor information program internally and externally; use welcome centers outside the park to provide visitors information for planning their visits to the park and region. To reduce the amount of sediments and pollutants entering Mowich Lake, close the road to vehicles 0.5 mile from the lake and convert it to a trail. After completion of the boundary adjustment and development of the new facilities, close the Carbon River Road to private vehicles when there is a major washout of the road and convert the Ipsut Creek Campground to a walk-in/bike-in camping area. Recommend a boundary adjustment west of the Carbon River Entrance, including about 1,063 acres to provide for a new campground, picnic area, and administrative facilities, and to protect the river corridor. (Congressional action would be required for this action.)  Copies of the Record of Decision are available from the Superintendent, Mount Rainier National Park, Tahoma Woods, Star Route, Ashford, Washington 98304-9751; (360)-569-2211 (ext. 2301) or via Email: donna_rahier@nps.gov . The Record of Decision and the Final EIS/GMP is also available in its entirety via the Internet at the National Park Service Website Mount Rainier National Park Record of Decision/General Management Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bandit Posted June 27, 2004 Author Share Posted June 27, 2004 Winter, I'm talking about maintanence costs on "The West Side Road". Not the national forest, not the rest of the U.S. As far as the MRNP doing anything. It's all blah, blah, bullshit. They're not going to do anything except raise the fees and bitch about how they don't have any funds to do anything with. Same old story. MRNP is like corporate America. They talk a good game, but when it comes down to service, forget about it. You guys keep tripping over yourselves on those crowded Paradise trails. It's only going to get worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark_Husbands Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 Surveys and public comment suggest National Park visitors are highly satisfied with the parks. The same goes for MRNP. Other polls show NPS is the most trusted agency in the federal government. Most people don't support your development agenda. At MNRP, there will be a new visitor center replacing the JVC, and some type of shuttle system to reduce parking problems in Paradise, and maybe to provide limited access to Westside road and Mowich. There will be no new visitor centers out there, but there will be a facility down near Ashford so folks can get information without driving to Paradise to do so. Information about park funding is out there, and shows about a 1-2% increase in hard funds...less than inflation. So the real purchasing power is going down. There are other soft money sources for emergency road repair--right now the Park is fixing almost every backcountry bridge in the park, and planning to shore up the big hole in Sunshine Pt. campground. Securing these funds from a tightfisted congress is a competitive process. i dont think spending money on WSR represents a wise priority at all. And your visitor center idea is the realm of pure fantasy, thank goodness. the idea that parks and park visitors can be best served by extensive development was abandoned after Mission 66. The proposal to put VCs out there would never survive the public comment period, much less the inevitable court challenge. Â Visitation Total Recreation Visits for FY 2004- Not Yet Reported Total Recreation Visits for FY 2003- 1,312,415 Total Recreation Visits for FY 2002- 1,267,050 Total Recreation Visits for FY 2001- 1,338,235 Â Budget FY 2004 Annual Budget is $9,290,000 FY 2003 Annual Budget is $9,162,000 FY 2002 Annual Budget is $9,019,000 FY 2001 Annual Budget is $8,837,000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 Winter, I'm talking about maintanence costs on "The West Side Road". Not the national forest, not the rest of the U.S. As far as the MRNP doing anything. It's all blah, blah, bullshit. They're not going to do anything except raise the fees and bitch about how they don't have any funds to do anything with. Same old story. MRNP is like corporate America. They talk a good game, but when it comes down to service, forget about it. You guys keep tripping over yourselves on those crowded Paradise trails. It's only going to get worse. Rainier has $101 million maintenance backlog, over half of which is road repair. Perhaps they should work on that first? Â Oh heavens me, I let facts intrude! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 Winter is an environmental attorney. He posts here regularly for help and support for some noble causes such as fighting proposed development on Mount Hood. But when it comes to preserving traditional access he is strangely silent...and now apparently is a mouth-piece for the NPS lock 'em out gang. Â True colors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swaterfall Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 How does not re-opening a washed out road constitute a "lock-em out" strategy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.