Blood Mt parking issues

[FatMan]

Another good option for Blood Mtn is to park at Wolfpen Gap (SR180) and hike the Duncan Ridge Trail to Blood. About 2.5 miles from the gap to the top of Blood. Never seen a parking issue at Wolfpen.

[Disco]

If you think the parking problem is bad now, wait until 'The Walk In The Woods' effect occurs.

[scope]

Reading the ops post he said he saw the no parking sign. No Parking means no parking!

I believe I covered that part and I believe I agreed with your sentiment, so what's your point?

For me, that process works. I learned, and unless I get a little more flush with dough, it won't happen again. If I were the average person going to Blood, then activity would die down just as the USFS wants it to. Just saying that any expectation that its going to work in the long run with what is in reality the average clientele visiting this trailhead is foolish.

[No Directions]

That section of trail has been on my stay away from list for years. It is by far the most popular section of the AT in GA. Many of the people that hike that section have no clue what a blaze is and just hike willy nilly through the woods creating a web of trails. In some places it's hard to tell where the actual trail is. Not to mention disregard for the switchbacks. The summit is far too crowded on a nice weekend. The hike to Blood Mountain from Vogel is more scenic anyway.

[soulrebel]

I got a $60 ticket there last year when I took Grandpa and the kids for a hike. It seemed obvious that there are plenty of places to park but they decided to turn it into a money maker the last few years by posting no parking signs everywhere. There wasn't even a visible sign in the area where I was ticketed (right on the edge of the lot). This year we decided not to go. If they want to limit traffic, they've done a good job. They've also made quite a few local parks inaccessible financially for most families. I don't goto the woods to pay $5 for unsecured parking and regulated hiking/paddling/biking. Along the Chattachoochee River, it used to be free, but now it costs $10 (5 putin/5 takeout in parking fees to go float or walk on the river for a couple hours. You used to be able to goto the fish hatchery family fishing pond after school for some "free" fun during the week, but now those hours promptly end at 3pm making it impossible if you attend school. The overcharging, over-regulation, almost entrapment type situations that occur in the parks and on the trails has kept us at home more and more...I even jokingly mentioned selling all my gear yesterday as we hardly go on extended trail trips anymore. Getting people outdoors and active is hard enough these days, the officials and taxmen are making it even more difficult. GL out there.

[Slo-go'en]

The overcharging, over-regulation, almost entrapment type situations that occur in the parks and on the trails has kept us at home more and more..

The government (be it local, state or federal) has three choices when faced with rising costs.

1) rise taxes 2) cut services 3) charge fees.

Since they can't rise taxes (and we all know why) they use option 2 and 3.

When it comes to hiking and other outdoor sports, there are still plenty of free options, they just aren't at the most popular (and therefore over crowded) places.

[Traveler]

So there are no issues with vehicles damaging roadsides? No juvenile behavior like littering and that kind of stuff along roadsides? No vandalism/theft from parked cars outside of the parking area? No accidents involving parked vehicles along the road sides? No pedestrian issues from roadside parking on busy traffic days? How many traffic citations have been issued along that stretch of road for speeding or reckless driving that could or has impacted parked vehicles and people moving in and out of them has there been in the past two years? Whats the accident rate per mile along the park roads?

An uptick in enforcement typically is the result of some kind of problem or occurrence that officials are trying to avoid more of. If no parking signs are poorly set up, they get renewed. Periodic enforcement of no parking rules is necessary to keep people from parking in no parking areas with impunity.

I doubt its a revenue issue, given it costs some serious money to resign and perform high profile enforcement of these and other motor vehicle laws. Some local research will probably find the drivers for this, unless it was just time to refresh the parking restriction signs and get people who were accustomed to breaking the rules into line.

[Abatis1948]

When taxes are cut and funding is cut, where do you propose the funds come from to maintain these areas?

I got a $60 ticket there last year when I took Grandpa and the kids for a hike. It seemed obvious that there are plenty of places to park but they decided to turn it into a money maker the last few years by posting no parking signs everywhere. There wasn't even a visible sign in the area where I was ticketed (right on the edge of the lot). This year we decided not to go. If they want to limit traffic, they've done a good job. They've also made quite a few local parks inaccessible financially for most families. I don't goto the woods to pay $5 for unsecured parking and regulated hiking/paddling/biking. Along the Chattachoochee River, it used to be free, but now it costs $10 (5 putin/5 takeout in parking fees to go float or walk on the river for a couple hours. You used to be able to goto the fish hatchery family fishing pond after school for some "free" fun during the week, but now those hours promptly end at 3pm making it impossible if you attend school. The overcharging, over-regulation, almost entrapment type situations that occur in the parks and on the trails has kept us at home more and more...I even jokingly mentioned selling all my gear yesterday as we hardly go on extended trail trips anymore. Getting people outdoors and active is hard enough these days, the officials and taxmen are making it even more difficult. GL out there.

[scope]

...The summit is far too crowded on a nice weekend...

http://whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/show...?i=61348&c=535

[scope]

When taxes are cut and funding is cut, where do you propose the funds come from to maintain these areas?

I understand the argument, but its a little too easy to throw out there, don't you think? I'm not saying the solution is easy, but by this point judging from the similar 2010 thread, I'd like to see more direct management of the issues.

IMO, you're either working toward building additional parking to accommodate the obvious need, or else you're working on a way to limit folks coming in to the Byron Reece parking area as well as doing more to educate the public of the issues there in order to reduce day hiker traffic. For all I know, both of these are in the works and I just haven't seen any evidence of that. If not, then I think maintaining the status quo is an awful way to manage this particular area.

[ytsuejam]

.....um......maybe you could get there earlier? Or set up a shuttle?

[Slo-go'en]

I understand the argument, but its a little too easy to throw out there, don't you think? I'm not saying the solution is easy, but by this point judging from the similar 2010 thread, I'd like to see more direct management of the issues.

IMO, you're either working toward building additional parking to accommodate the obvious need, or else you're working on a way to limit folks coming in to the Byron Reece parking area as well as doing more to educate the public of the issues there in order to reduce day hiker traffic. For all I know, both of these are in the works and I just haven't seen any evidence of that. If not, then I think maintaining the status quo is an awful way to manage this particular area.

The bottom line is that fixing problems like these are way, way, way, way down on the list of priorities for the state/county/town to work on. When and if there is any significant road work thru there, that is the only time a parking lot issue is likely to be addressed. And even then it might be a battle to get them to spend the extra money.

[Stubby]

Options are limited by cost.
A). Build a bigger parking lot. But how big? Walmart big? Who pays for the clearing and gravel and what-not? USFS? Local AT Club? Charge a fee to help pay for it? Collect a fee using the envelopes-and-lockbox system with once- or twice-a-day enforcement to limit personnel costs?
B). Set up a reservation system, like State Park campsites, for the parking sites. Publish it, and put up a sign at the parking site about the reservation system. This would entail more costs, but would avoid building a huge parking lot. But would entail a gate and a person. So, expensive, but only needed on weekends.
C). Partner with a local business (an outfitter maybe?) and set up a shuttle to nearest town. Post a sign that gives a phone number, and an address (and directions) to the shuttle pick-up site where you can park and catch the shuttle, the hours, and the fees for parking and/or the shuttle. Probably weekends only.

Just throwing things out there to show that there are viable alternatives. I like "C".

[scope]

Agreed, I think a shuttle system makes more sense instead of doling out tickets for years on end every weekend. The sign at the end of the parking area says to go to Vogel, so I assume they have some parking to accommodate (more than I saw when I was there?). If so, the shuttle fee can be combined in some manner with the parking fee. State government making money off the USFS, that works, right? Otherwise, there are flat areas that could be used not too far past Vogel.

Funny sometimes what happens when you fix stuff that is supposedly "down the list" in terms of priorities. Just takes some discussion and thought. Not saying there might not be issues with this solution, but is it not a step in the right direction? Perhaps not if limiting foot traffic on the trail is a priority. if so, then I think you have to permit that lot to pay for improvements that ensure no one can park illegally, or that there are very few places where one could park illegally so it becomes much more obvious that its not a solution for the day's plans. Yeah, no parking means no parking, but as evidenced by the 2010 thread, that's really never been a good way of looking at the problem.

[scope]

OK, for reference, I went to Max Patch this weekend. Every bit the same type of location that Blood Mt is in terms of the numbers and types of hikers. Has a parking lot about half the size of Byron Reece, and so cars line the dirt road around the lot. Now, there aren't any No Parking signs, so its completely legal to do so. But here's the thing, if you put No Parking signs at Max Patch, it wouldn't do squat to curtail the traffic there. People would still park along the side of the road despite if tickets were to be written. And driving to Lemon Gap to as an alternative if the lot were full is not really an option. I mean, it is, but its a totally different hike - a real hike as opposed to a simple climb up a hill. Unlike Blood, there are some connecting trails close by that are decent options in that they are not too much longer and close by, but that would be side of the road, too, as the only parking "lot" is the one at the main trailhead.

The management of the authority at Max Patch is much more common, whereas it is not common to give tix out left and right with seemingly no end to the practice. Again, this is the crux of my rant, that the USFS management at the Byron Reece lot is uncommonly punitive to the public. If you want my opinion on what the fix is, its to manage this area like most others are managed. Let me public come, and manage the damage as much as is reasonable given resources. Until it becomes a real problem where limiting public access becomes necessary, but if they're trying to prevent it from getting to that point, they are currently failing.

[Spacelord]

So will you park along side the road again at Byron Reece despite the ticket ?

Neither will the folks at Max Patch if no parking signs are put up.


Sent from my LG-V495 using Tapatalk

[scope]

So will you park along side the road again at Byron Reece despite the ticket ?

Neither will the folks at Max Patch if no parking signs are put up.


Sent from my LG-V495 using Tapatalk

Correct that I won't at Blood, but if you had read all of what's been said here, you might say otherwise about Max Patch. Just like Blood, there is no other place to go. The question is not will those who get a ticket come back and park on the side of the road when they revisit... rather, its will people continue to go to this very publicized location, and the answer to that question is an emphatic Yes, IMO. I highly doubt that folks will make the considerable effort to go to Max Patch, and if there are No Parking signs up, not still park there. Its a moot point as there are no signs there as its managed just like most sites like this are.

Perhaps you are one that would not. I'm just saying that most folks who drive hours to get somewhere are going to expect to have sufficient parking, and will park where they have to in order to not have wasted their time travelling. Human nature. You can have a Keep Off the Grass sign, but if you don't make the sidewalk go somewhat near a straight line to where folks want to go, and you don't put up barriers, then a path will be worn in the grass.

[Slo-go'en]

Okay I found a satellite photo of the Byron Reece parking lot. Looks to be a small lot off into the woods a bit off the highway. So, are people parking along the side of the access road or along the highway? I'm guessing the access road is too narrow to park along so their on the highway?

If they are parking along the short access road, that would be a National Forest issue. If their on the highway, that would be a state issue.

To get a bigger parking lot there, that would have to go through the NFS. The NFS can charge fees to park at trail heads. They do that up here in the Whites at popular trail heads. So, if they make the lot bigger, they would definitely start to charge fees for parking. I suppose a $5 day use fee is better then a $60 ticket.

[scope]

You can probably see all of the parking in that small lot. That semi-circle of a drive into and out of that lot is about 20% parking lot, and the rest of the 80% of that circle is about 60% parkable. There is a small section along the main hwy down from Mountain Crossings where there might be space along the side to park. There are No Parking signs there and no one, of the very large crowd there that day, was parked on the hwy. Otherwise there is no space to park along the side of the hwy given the incline.

I really don't mind a fee to park and I'm actually surprised there isn't one at Byron Reece. There is a $3 fee at Lake Winfield Scott where its probably not needed.