Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry W. Virginia and New York but in Washington state (not on this list), it's not really considered much of a mountain if it's not snow capped year round...but seriously, I would have voted Alaska had they been on the list. Top 5 would be:
1. Alaska
2. Colorado
3. Washington
4. California
5. Oregon
Alaska for sheer beauty. Colorado for scope. Washington for effect. People talking about the East coast "mountains" all green and rounded....really, you just like hills that happen to eclipse 2000 feet. Those aren't mountains. Alaska's are the most powerful by a mile. I'm partial to Washington's simply because it's one of the few areas where you can be surrounded by them (the Cascades to the East and the Olympics to the West), whereas you have to look West to see any in Colorado - as well as the character of some of the more notable mountains (Mt. Rainier completely dominating the horizon, St. Helens all blown to bits, Baker on those 50-some-odd days a year you can actually see it).
Excluding Alaska, Washington. The North Cascades have as big base to top gains as any mountain range in the lower 48 states, and in general steeper than any other. The ample wildflowers and lush vegetation adds to the scenery. The Olympic Mountains are smaller and less steep but picturesque. It has the largest volcano (Mt. Rainier). All photos by me.
While I never set foot in Alaska, I remember looking out the window during a flight from Boston to Tokyo last year after seeing, "Mt. Mckinley" on the live map. Even at 35,000 feet, Mt. Mckinley was an inspiring presence. One like I've never seen in the U.S. before.
From places I've been?
1) Montana
2) Washington
3) Oregon
4) California
5) Colorado
Washington, Oregon, and Alaska could easily be considered for first, alongside Cali and Colorado. I would put most or all of the western mountain states ahead of the eastern ones.
Probably something like this:
Top Tier:
Washington/Colorado/Oregon/California/Alaska
Here's a list of all states (AK excluded) with at least one mountain with 2000 ft of prominence ranked by number of peaks of 2000ft or more prominence per square mile:
State Area Pks-p2k Pks/sqMi
WA 66582 147 0.00221
HI 6423 11 0.00171
NV 109806 172 0.00157
VT 9249 13 0.00141
NH 8969 12 0.00134
ID 82751 101 0.00122
CA 155973 167 0.00107
MT 145556 146 0.00100
UT 82168 82 0.00100
CO 103730 81 0.00078
OR 96003 75 0.00078
AZ 113642 73 0.00064
ME 30865 16 0.00052
NM 121365 47 0.00039
WY 97105 35 0.00036
NY 47224 13 0.00028
NC 48708 11 0.00023
VA 39598 9 0.00023
TN 41220 6 0.00015
MA 7838 1 0.00013
WV 24087 2 0.00008
TX 261914 12 0.00005
AR 52075 1 0.00002
GA 57919 1 0.00002
SD 75989 1 0.00001
AK is excluded because there is not enough data, which isn't surprising giving the sheer size of the state and isolation of many of its peaks.
Some things to consider of course, are that some of the mountains out west have prominence values exceeding 10,000 feet. Also, scale comes into play (167 peaks in CA and 147 in WA vs 13 in VT or 12 in NH).
That's an interesting measurement, but I think the area of peaks in the state above a certain prominence is what really matters, not the percentage of area of the whole state. Vermont above Colorado? Are you kidding me? It gives tiny northeast states too much credit. Number of peaks is somewhat arbitrary. Some things are named and some aren't.
2000 ft is too low a cutoff as well. It counts the molehills in Texas as equal to the skyscrapers in Alaska. So instead why not raise it to something like... 4000 ft? Those are more important mountains. That would kick off Massachusetts at the very least, and I think it would bring Hawaii above all the eastern states, and put states with steeper peaks like CO and WA well above Texas. Everything from Tennessee upward would stay on the list, I think.
Anything in the Northeast trumps anything out west. The mountains out west are nice, but they lack a nice green forested surface. Instead, they appear dry and Martian. The mountains in the Northeast are full of vegetation and life. I much prefer humid climates over dry climates.
This is completely untrue! SOME ranges in the west are dry, but not all, not even close! Check out the mountain ranges in the Pacific Northwest- they are lush green covered in dense evergreen forest (much more dense than any forest on any hill or mountain back east, the densest forests in the country are here), they are wet, mossy, waterfalls everywhere, snow capped for most of the year. The mountains back east are nothing but glorified hills- not dramatic looking at all, and as others mentioned the deciduous forest is not attractive because for half of the year the leaves are gone, making them look brown and dead.
Last edited by jm31828; 05-15-2013 at 07:45 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
