You are here

Grand Teton Transportation Plan Spurring Debate

Share

Published Date

August 14, 2005

    How pedestrian and cyclist friendly should Grand Teton National Park be? That's the question as park officials wind down the public comment period on their preferred transportation plan. Cyclists and automobiles are not the most compatible in the park. Roads are narrow and windy, and motorists often draw their eyes off the road to the mountains. In recent years two cyclists have been killed in automobile collisions in the park.
    Park officials want to give cyclists and pedestrians more protection by developing a network of multi-use paths and adding bike lanes to some sections of road. Some groups, most notably the National Park Conservation Association, don't think the park is going far enough.
    Read on to see what's at stake.
   

   

    Under the park's preferred alternative -- alternative 3 -- 23 miles of multi-use paths would be created in the park. Plus, another 16 miles of four-and-a-half-foot-wide bike lanes would be built from North Jenny Lake to Colter Bay Village. This alternative also calls for a pilot transportation system.
    At the NPCA, officials want the park to get behind alternative 4, which, in addition to everything called for in alternative 3, would create seperate multi-use pathways along the full length of the Moose-Wilson Road. This road roams through rich wildlife habitat. There are bushes lush with berries that lure black bears, and beaver ponds that moose enjoy. The current road is very narrow, and in my mind there's a question as to whether it could be widened or a pathway installed parallel to it without infringing on environmentally sensitive lands.
    In addition to those two alternatives, park officials say they also have several transit proposals they want to test along the Moose-Wilson Road. These range from making the road one-way and creating windows when only cyclists and hikers could use the road to implementing a public transit system.
    What's the best solution? I'm not sure at this point, although both alternatives 3 and 4 would be a marked improvement over the current situation. However, alternative 4 would impact 4,100 -- yes, 4,100 --  more trees along the Moose-Wilson Road than alternative 3. The key question is whether the Moose-Wilson corridor can safely be expanded to allow for separate routes for motorists and bikers without impacting critical habitat.
    The current public comment system runs until August 25. Check out the Grand Teton transportation plan  and let park officials know which alternative you favor and why.

Support National Parks Traveler

Your support for the National Parks Traveler comes at a time when news organizations are finding it hard, if not impossible, to stay in business. Traveler's work is vital. For nearly two decades we've provided essential coverage of national parks and protected areas. With the Trump administration’s determination to downsize the federal government, and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s approach to public lands focused on energy exploration, it’s clear the Traveler will have much to cover in the months and years ahead. We know of no other news organization that provides such broad coverage of national parks and protected areas on a daily basis. Your support is greatly appreciated.

 

EIN: 26-2378789

Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places

A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.

Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:

  • Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
  • Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
  • Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
  • North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
  • Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
  • Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
  • Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.

Comments

Hi Kurt, Great article! GTNP park management has some tough choices ahead of them in this transportation plan. For my two cents, transit has to play a central role in this plan. Separated pathways from the town of Jackson to Jenny Lake are also a must, while I think that the Park needs to decide which direction they're headed with the Moose-Wilson corridor (some say leave it alone, some say close it to traffic, others lie elsewhere) before they put paths in there. As it stands now that road is just too sensitive in my mind to add it into the pathways debate. As you and I recently discussed however, all of this pales in comparison to a very real threat facing Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks. The Department of Energy is fast-tracking a proposal to produce plutonium at the Idaho National Labratory (INL) 90 miles upwind of these national treasures. The following link might interest you. http://nytimes.com/2005/08/03/opinion/03broyles.html. Visit http://www.yellowstonenuclearfree.com for more background information as well. We must do all we can to stop this proposal and I encourage everyone who has a love of Yellowstone and GTNP to write the DOE at the following address to let them know that producing plutonium at INL is unacceptable. Comment period ends August 26, 2005. Write or call Timothy Frazier, EIS document manager, to tell him that their EIS is flawed and incomplete. Email: [email protected] Phone: (800) 919-3706

Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Your urgent support helps the National Parks Traveler increase awareness of the wonders and issues confronting national parks and protected areas.

Support Our Mission

INN Member

The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.

Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.

You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

FREE for iPhones and Android phones.