Limited parking will be available at the Delicate Arch/Wolfe Ranch parking area in Arches National Park from March through April/Kurt Repanshek
There will be limited parking at Delicate Arch in Arches National Park beginning in March and running through April as work begins to expand the parking lot.
The decision to enlarge the parking area was made in response to overcrowding and parking on the shoulders of the road leading to the Delicate Arch/Wolfe Ranch parking area. Phase two of the project will take place in June or July over approximately one week and focus on paving and striping of the expanded parking area.
The trailhead will remain open with limited parking Monday through Thursday and be fully open Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.
Expansion of this parking lot is the first step in implementation of planned congestion-management strategies outlined in the Delicate Arch/Wolfe Ranch Site Plan.
Under the expansion plan, nearly 2,000 visitors a day will be able to access Delicate Arch and the Wolfe Ranch via the parking area, according to planners. But since the expansion plan is envisioned only to accommodate traffic that currently parks along the road, park officials don't expect an overall increase in the foot traffic to Delicate Arch.
Implementation of a reservation system will only occur as a separate future planning effort, one in which the NPS will engage with partners, agencies, and the public in determining the best way to design and implement such a system.
While parks such as Acadia, Zion, Bryce Canyon and Rocky Mountain have turned to shuttle bus systems to help manage traffic and congestion, the staff at Arches concluded that that was not a reasonable solution for their park.
The cabin at Wolfe Ranch shows how hardy early homesteaders in the area were/Kurt Repanshek
Comments
Once again, EC, you state you haven't been there, so your knowledge of the area is a big ZERO. Moab is a very small and compact town, and sits right next to the park boundary. It's very similar to Springdale, and it's close proximity to Zion. In fact, the two parks have a lot of similarities. The system they have setup in that park is very smart. I don't see why a park entrance pass couldn't be included in the shuttle fees. You hop on the shuttle, everyone pays a few bucks for the service, which pays for a "day pass" and basically the shuttle is funded through that service. They could then put limits on the amount of cars per day allowed into the park. Once the limit is exceeded, they are then asked to go to Moab (where there is a lot of parking), and they can take the shuttle into the park. Don't see how this is "uneconomical". Especially in a park that gets millions of visitors a year. This isn't rocket science, except to maybe realtors.
Well, Moab isn't quite as close to Arches as Springdale is to Zion. While you can walk into Zion from Springdale in a few minutes, Moab is five miles south of the entrance to Arches.
Still, if Park City can leverage the federal government for transportation funds to operate its free bus system, which not only circles downtown Park City but reaches 8 miles north of town to some subdivisions and shopping areas, it would seem possible that Moab could qualify for the same program to get visitors to the park's visitor's center, where a park shuttle system could originate.
Making a loop to the Windows area, then Delicate Arch, and finally the Devils Garden lot, would seem feasible. But park staff has evaluated this possibiity and decided it's not.
Which is why I ask the question. Unlike you Gary, I don't pretend to know things that I don't actually know. I do see however that Zion is a single relatively short road for the tram. Arches on the otherhand is much longer and has several spurs which would make the tram/bus service much less efficient.
Now I will ask a third time. Is the parking area at the trailhead of the Delicate Arch trail a particularly sensitve area? If not, I don't see the objection.
A shuttle would seem to make sense to me also oawever I imagine those costs are quite high. Vehicle purchase, drivers, insurance, maintenance, storage etc... Getting the federal govt to pitch in while attractive to those who love the parks is still money from our pockets as well as those who don't use the parks at all. We need to stop thinking of govt money as somehow being free. I'm not suggesting that that is what you are saying Kurt, but there does seem to be a tendency for people to think in those terms.
I wasn't thinking new money, but rather money already budgeted for transportation programs, such as the Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Program.
Noting the comments above, you can understand what Winston Churchill meant. Round and round we go when the solution is right there in front of us. Then do it now. No, we have to ask whether the park is "senstive." Then we have to protest the cost. Then we have to protest the distances involved. Then we have to protest the time it would take. And so, once again we reach for the six gun. Boom! Lay the asphalt and be done with it.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the boys in the bunkhouse are talking about all of the wind farms we will need to halt climate change. They seem to have no trouble funding those. Who were those masked men that stole all of the Park Service's funding? The Koch brothers? No, the president of the United States.
He does the budget. Why is the Park Service at the bottom of the heap, while General Electric gets all it wants?
Don't tell me this is a funding issue. It's never a funding issue. It is rather about who has the power and dares exercise it for good or ill. As Jeffrey Immelt of GE put it to a colleague of mine just last year, "I am at the table in the White House, and you aren't."
Well, let's get to the table. It's time. Ask Hillary Clinton what she has mind for the national parks Ask Jeb Bush. The Koch brothers will be hoping to buy both of them. GE will spend lavishly on their campaigns. How about we remind every candidate next year what a democracy is? If we have the time to waff waff with one another here, will we take the time to exercise that privilege?
Kurt, we need major articles on the parks philosophy of every candidate. Then we need them to go viral, as did the trademarks issue, thanks to you. No more Mr. Nice Guy. Just a few votes can swing a state. How about we make those swing votes count for parks?
And why is that not a reasonable question? Sounds to me that you have your "solution" and are looking for a problem when it might not exist.
One important factor in this equation is distance. It's a lot farther than in Zion. Something like 40 miles roundtrip instead of 14. Covering that distance while carrying all the passengers needing transport would require a whole lot more vehicles than are required in Zion where each shuttle can make a round trip in about an hour. I'm guessing here, but figure it would require perhaps four times as much time to make the trip in Arches. Thus, it would be reasonable that it would require four times as many vehicles, drivers, mechanics and other support. And, four times the $$$s.
Also, the park entrance is in a canyon bounded on one side by highway and the other side by cliffs. There is no place within the park's entrance area for adequate parking. A big parking lot will be needed somewhere outside the park and probably several miles away in either direction. (Maybe the area along the Colorado River where a few million dollars were recently spent to remove a few million tons of uranium mine waste would make a good spot. It's big enough. And if you park there long enough, your car might glow in the dark. That would be novel.)
Allowing people to drive private vehicles into the park would defeat the purpose. But for those who want to go to the campground -- which is at the far end of the 20 mile road -- could be handled in the same manner as vehicles belonging to guests at Zion Lodge. A red tag on the dashboard allows entrance to the lodge parking lot and no more. Once at the lodge, the car is parked and they ride the shuttle.
Don't get me wrong. I'm 110% in favor of developing a shuttle at Arches. It can be done and should be done. But it ain't a-gonna be easy.
As for the sensitivity of the area at the Delicate Arch trailhead -- heck yes, it's sensitive. Unless it has been moved since I was there last time, it's in one of very few riparian areas along a small creek fed by a feeble spring. It's also right beside the historic Wolf Ranch homestead shown in the photo accompanying the article. Besides, as someone pointed out above, EVERY part of a natural national park is sensitive.
Then there are all the political angles involved. I believe I am correct in saying that the Zion shuttles enjoyed full support from Senator Bob Bennett. Bennett was a moderate who was dumped in a party convention when the Tea Party went after him. He was replaced by Mike Lee who is about as far out as one can get. Expecting any support from Lee is like wishing for the Good Fairy to pay a visit.
While it's very easy to blame park administration and WASO and DOI, it's almost certainly not that simple.