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.
I'll bet there is, at least in part of the park. The road from the north entrance to Gardiner, which lies just above the northwest entrance, is the only access Gardiner has to the outside world in the winters, so it's plowed and cleared all year.
Mmmmmmmm.... you may be thinking of Gardiner MT (the north entrance) to Mammoth Hot Springs and then east to the Northeast entrance, which is the only open winter road to Cooke City MT and goes through the park. So that may be open to bicycles too in winter. But it is going to be super cold.... I've been there in winter snowmobiling and that area is quite bleak and can be suuuuuper cold. Better be suuuuper prepared and have a backup check on you if you try to bicycle from Gardiner to Cooke City in the dead of winter.
Mmmmmmmm.... you may be thinking of Gardiner MT (the north entrance) to Mammoth Hot Springs and then east to the Northeast entrance, which is the only open winter road to Cooke City MT and goes through the park. So that may be open to bicycles too in winter. But it is going to be super cold.... I've been there in winter snowmobiling and that area is quite bleak and can be suuuuuper cold. Better be suuuuper prepared and have a backup check on you if you try to bicycle from Gardiner to Cooke City in the dead of winter.
Sorry! Absolutely correct, ham. I was thinking of Cooke City and caught the wrong name and gave the directions backwards. Age is hell; I haven't been over that route for 20 years or more.
Cooke City is a pretty cool little town if you can ever get there. Don't use my directions, and you might find it.
You're right about the winters too. A person would have to be crazy to ride a bike over that road in the dead of winter.
It's a shame that tourists have to be in this park at all.
With their ruining hot springs via dumping copper pennies in, and getting too friendly with the bison/elk etc.
Perhaps a required dumb tourist educational seminar would discourage the idiocy.
It's a shame that tourists have to be in this park at all. With their ruining hot springs via dumping copper pennies in, and getting too friendly with the bison/elk etc.
Perhaps a required dumb tourist educational seminar would discourage the idiocy.
I actually was a bit disappointed with the park. Yeah, the geysers and hot springs are great. But that's it. The rest of the park is not that great compared to, say, Yosemite.
And I thought it would be more wooded and green. Maybe it was because it was summer, but it seemed very dry and scrubby. I prefer wet, lush places like Adirondacks, Maine, Pacific NW, etc.
I'm sure that would allow bicycles too, at least through the Hayden valley part of the park, the Mammoth Springs area, and probably down as far as the W. Yellowstone entrance or Old Faithful.
There's winter traffic in all of these areas, and while automobiles may not be permitted, bicycles sure could be. They only close the roads down to prepare for the seasonal changes in traffic.
I was referring to that short, several week period in the spring when the snow has melted on the tarmac but the gates are still closed. It is the transition time where the park reconfigures from winter activities to summer crowds. Not sure exactly what they are doing, but was told that they "are getting ready for the summer season".
Bicycles are allowed in, but not where bears are doing their mating dances, (for obvious reasons). Usually the road from West Yellowstone to Madison Junction is open to bikes. Sometimes further past that if the bears are elsewhere. As stated elsewhere, the road from Gardiner to Cooke City is always open. Wouldn't want to ride that in the wintertime. Too cold!
I was just wondering if there is that several week period in the autumn when the gates are closed, but snow hasn't fallen yet and bicycles can enter.
Raise the entrance fee from $25 per vehicle to $25 per person.. per day!
Should keep the crowds down, don't ya think?
The increase, if it went into park repair and maintenance, would help the park, but probably wouldn't cut down on the crowds.
I don't want the crowds to decrease! Yellowstone is a public park a place that has been reserved to be enjoyed by everyone, as many everyones as possible. It's one of the world's most special places, so it's good so many folks want to come experience Yellowstone.
What's really needed is better people management, not fewer people. The old roads, walkways, guard rails, accommodations, and everything else is very old, designed and constructed for their time. In their time, there were far fewer visitors to the park.
Every access into the park was almost as difficult to navigate by private auto as the roads in the park. They were all narrow, twisty, 2-lane highways that were all driven slowly, and they all tended to act as natrual traffic control inside the park.
These days, the park has 4 Interstates surrounding it in all four directions. All of them put visitors within a 100 mile or less distance away from the park boundaries. It's very easy to drive an Interstate, and a visitor has no trouble hauling a travel trailer or getting on a big tour bus to take them to Yellowstone.
Once within that 100-mile surround, a lot of the state highways that take lead to the park entrances have been widened and improved to make those drives easier, faster, and more accessible. US 20, for example, is like an Interstate, with 3 or 4 lanes, fast exit ramps, etc. almost all the way into the west entrance.
But once inside, everyone is driving on roads that were built in the 1930s, designed for slow traffic and smaller vehicles. There are too few, too small parking lots in all the major park centers, very few places to got off the road in a turn-off, and those turn-offs that exist are too small.
There are too few spots for trailers, accommodations are old and too few, not enough public toilets, drinking fountains, and all the rest. So nothing helps alleviate the congestion.
Worse, all the national park's budgets have been cut, cut, and cut again ever since the Great Recession, 11 years ago. Yellowstone's extreme climate tears everything up contstanly, every day. The roads get frozen and break up, all the buildings steadily degrade along with all the other facilities, and all maintenance has to be done in the summer months, the only time repair can be done.
So this, too, increases the congestion. And always will until there is a way to be found to pave a roadway at -30 in the winter.
With no funds available for road repair, some of the roads in the park have become very dangerous for a driver who's never driven a gravel road over a mountain pass. Minor accidents, such as slide-offs, are increasing, and every one of them backs up the traffic for hours and hours.
Personally, I think the best way to manage the congestion would be banning private vehicles inside the park for a jitney system that picks up visitors at all the entrances and runs in a never-ending loop like a city bus system.
Allow all the small towns that have grown up around all the entrances to build new, safe, parking lots for the cars and tour busses and all, allow them to build new hotels, campgrounds, etc. on private property outside the park boundaries and do other things that make it easy to stop, stay, and then enter the park without the need for a car.
I would allow campers who want to hike in with what they can carry to use the existing campgrounds and parking lots, allow bicycles or anything that's foot-powered, but nothing with a motor that was privately owned.
I would also make the jitneys run on a rail system or one that doesn't require as much annual repair, where passenger cars can be added or taken off to fill shifting demands. One that can operate in all 4 seasons so visitors can come at any time of year and see the park in comfort and safety.
I also think all the boardwalks and other foot trails need re-design to accommodate the visitors. Almost all of them are wooden boardwalks, built in the 30s, and in some of the most dangerous spots, are both dangerous and treacherously old and slick.
People are burned in the park every year, and some people die in the park every year from hot water scalding. Others are injured in falls at the overlooks and other spots. Once injured, a visitor will have a hard time getting treatment because of these difficulties.
There are better and more permanent ways to construct all those walkways than ancient boardwalks. There are many ways to make a visit more safe than it is now, and those ways should be employed and constructed.
With the world in turmoil and our nation's cheap fuel, I don't expect anything but a steady increase of park usage every year for the rest of my life. When I was a kid, Yellowstone got about 350,000 visitors a year. Last year, it got 4 million visitors.
Idaho Falls is one of the major stop-off cities for Yellowstone. To accommodate the increased traffic to the park, I.F. now has over a dozen new motels that are all less than 10 years old, and more are in construction now.
Idaho Falls has also made a major effort in making the city a place for park visitors to linger for a day and enjoy the city's amenities before going to the park. We have a unified signage system that points visitors to our own parks, shopping centers, hospitals, and other amenities.
We have also beautified all the entrances off the Interstate, making a visitor's first impression of our town a pleasant one, a place someone would want to stop in and spend some time.
It was expensive, but it sure paid off. At least 2,500,000 of the folks who are going to Yellowstone now stay in Idaho Falls for 24 hours or more. All those folks taking a family vacation can now pull off here, find a good motel, and walk to get anything they need if they choose to walk. There are large shopping areas within walking distance at every exit.
But the closer a visitor comes to any park entrance, the fewer of these facilities there are. All the cities that are closest to the park are still small and under-developed.
If Yellowstone got the money it needs to make the park experience better in all ways, even more visitors will come. And every town in a huge surrounding area would benefit with every increase.
And this benefit could happen with every one of our national parks. They are all run-down, in bad need of repair and modernization.
Folks who go on vacation expect to spend money. They want a safe, wonderful experience in all of them. And they come from all over the world.
If we were to demand our best natural attractions to be at their best, it would put a lot of money in all our pockets. Everything in our parks that's only huge costs could all become national profit centers that extend far beyond the boundaries of the parks themselves.
And every tourist would go home with a ton of happy memories. They will want to come back again and again. Our national parks won't wear out like a new Disneyland will. And time spent in natural splendor is much better than time spent in a theme park.
We have some of the best natural splendor the world can offer. It belongs to us all, and if we were to wisely improve what we have, it could benefit all of us, our kids, grand-kids, and everyone for many generations to come. In ways that are the most beneficial of all to the spirit and the pocketbook.
The increase, if it went into park repair and maintenance, would help the park, but probably wouldn't cut down on the crowds.
I don't want the crowds to decrease! Yellowstone is a public park a place that has been reserved to be enjoyed by everyone, as many everyones as possible. It's one of the world's most special places, so it's good so many folks want to come experience Yellowstone.
What's really needed is better people management, not fewer people. The old roads, walkways, guard rails, accommodations, and everything else is very old, designed and constructed for their time. In their time, there were far fewer visitors to the park.
Every access into the park was almost as difficult to navigate by private auto as the roads in the park. They were all narrow, twisty, 2-lane highways that were all driven slowly, and they all tended to act as natrual traffic control inside the park.
These days, the park has 4 Interstates surrounding it in all four directions. All of them put visitors within a 100 mile or less distance away from the park boundaries. It's very easy to drive an Interstate, and a visitor has no trouble hauling a travel trailer or getting on a big tour bus to take them to Yellowstone.
Once within that 100-mile surround, a lot of the state highways that take lead to the park entrances have been widened and improved to make those drives easier, faster, and more accessible. US 20, for example, is like an Interstate, with 3 or 4 lanes, fast exit ramps, etc. almost all the way into the west entrance.
But once inside, everyone is driving on roads that were built in the 1930s, designed for slow traffic and smaller vehicles. There are too few, too small parking lots in all the major park centers, very few places to got off the road in a turn-off, and those turn-offs that exist are too small.
There are too few spots for trailers, accommodations are old and too few, not enough public toilets, drinking fountains, and all the rest. So nothing helps alleviate the congestion.
Worse, all the national park's budgets have been cut, cut, and cut again ever since the Great Recession, 11 years ago. Yellowstone's extreme climate tears everything up contstanly, every day. The roads get frozen and break up, all the buildings steadily degrade along with all the other facilities, and all maintenance has to be done in the summer months, the only time repair can be done.
So this, too, increases the congestion. And always will until there is a way to be found to pave a roadway at -30 in the winter.
With no funds available for road repair, some of the roads in the park have become very dangerous for a driver who's never driven a gravel road over a mountain pass. Minor accidents, such as slide-offs, are increasing, and every one of them backs up the traffic for hours and hours.
Personally, I think the best way to manage the congestion would be banning private vehicles inside the park for a jitney system that picks up visitors at all the entrances and runs in a never-ending loop like a city bus system.
This actually makes some sense
Allow all the small towns that have grown up around all the entrances to build new, safe, parking lots for the cars and tour busses and all, allow them to build new hotels, campgrounds, etc.
..This, not so much.
I would allow campers who want to hike in with what they can carry to use the existing campgrounds and parking lots, allow bicycles or anything that's foot-powered, but nothing with a motor that was privately owned.
I would also make the jitneys run on a rail system or one that doesn't require as much annual repair, where passenger cars can be added or taken off to fill shifting demands. One that can operate in all 4 seasons so visitors can come at any time of year and see the park in comfort and safety.
I also think all the boardwalks and other foot trails need re-design to accommodate the visitors. Almost all of them are wooden boardwalks, built in the 30s, and in some of the most dangerous spots, are both dangerous and treacherously old and slick.
People are burned in the park every year, and some people die in the park every year from hot water scalding. Others are injured in falls at the overlooks and other spots. Once injured, a visitor will have a hard time getting treatment because of these difficulties.
There are better and more permanent ways to construct all those walkways than ancient boardwalks. There are many ways to make a visit more safe than it is now, and those ways should be employed and constructed.
With the world in turmoil and our nation's cheap fuel, I don't expect anything but a steady increase of park usage every year for the rest of my life. When I was a kid, Yellowstone got about 350,000 visitors a year. Last year, it got 4 million visitors.
Idaho Falls is one of the major stop-off cities for Yellowstone. To accommodate the increased traffic to the park, I.F. now has over a dozen new motels that are all less than 10 years old, and more are in construction now.
Idaho Falls has also made a major effort in making the city a place for park visitors to linger for a day and enjoy the city's amenities before going to the park. We have a unified signage system that points visitors to our own parks, shopping centers, hospitals, and other amenities.
We have also beautified all the entrances off the Interstate, making a visitor's first impression of our town a pleasant one, a place someone would want to stop in and spend some time.
It was expensive, but it sure paid off. At least 2,500,000 of the folks who are going to Yellowstone now stay in Idaho Falls for 24 hours or more. All those folks taking a family vacation can now pull off here, find a good motel, and walk to get anything they need if they choose to walk. There are large shopping areas within walking distance at every exit.
So turn Yellowstone into ORLANDO FLORIDA? YAY!!!
But the closer a visitor comes to any park entrance, the fewer of these facilities there are. All the cities that are closest to the park are still small and under-developed.
If Yellowstone got the money it needs to make the park experience better in all ways, even more visitors will come. And every town in a huge surrounding area would benefit with every increase.
And this benefit could happen with every one of our national parks. They are all run-down, in bad need of repair and modernization.
Folks who go on vacation expect to spend money. They want a safe, wonderful experience in all of them. And they come from all over the world.
If we were to demand our best natural attractions to be at their best, it would put a lot of money in all our pockets. Everything in our parks that's only huge costs could all become national profit centers that extend far beyond the boundaries of the parks themselves.
Ah.. the $$$$! I shoulda known...
And every tourist would go home with a ton of happy memories. They will want to come back again and again. Our national parks won't wear out like a new Disneyland will. And time spent in natural splendor is much better than time spent in a theme park.
We have some of the best natural splendor the world can offer. It belongs to us all, and if we were to wisely improve what we have, it could benefit all of us, our kids, grand-kids, and everyone for many generations to come. In ways that are the most beneficial of all to the spirit and the pocketbook.
Honestly, you sound well-meaning, but this 'grand plan' has about as much chance as a snowball in hell... at least in the near future.
Do we really want to pave paradise and put up a bunch of parking lots around a place originally conceived to preserve the natural beauty of remote areas? I fear that such a wholesale 'remodeling' would risk ZOO-ifying it. And not to harsh your buzz, but Yellowstone, as the first National Park, an international icon, and a wonderful place, is not 'one of the world's most special places'.
Maybe, just maybe, it should remain worth a bit of effort to experience it properly.
Just my $.02.
Last edited by PamelaIamela; 09-06-2019 at 02:22 PM..
Honestly, you sound well-meaning, but this 'grand plan' has about as much chance as a snowball in hell... at least in the near future.
Do we really want to pave paradise and put up a bunch of parking lots around a place originally conceived to preserve the natural beauty of remote areas? I fear that such a wholesale 'remodeling' would risk ZOO-ifying it. And not to harsh your buzz, but Yellowstone, as the first National Park, an international icon, and a wonderful place, is not 'one of the world's most special places'.
Maybe, just maybe, it should remain worth a bit of effort to experience it properly.
Just my $.02.
You could well be correct, Pamela.
I'm not really looking at the problem from a monetary viewpoint alone.
I believe Yellowstone Park has more visitors than it can handle now, and when everything is done inside the park to improve the experience, there will be even more folks who want to come to the park. Millions more.
Far more than the park can handle with the improvements in some of the things. Jitneys will improve the road congestion and make touring safer and easier, but buidling larger parking lots inside the park won't improve the park's experience any, nor will building big hotels inside the park.
That's the stuff that could make Yellowstone zoo-ified. No one wants to see Old Faithful go off surrounded by huge hotels like Disneyland.
If you want to preseverve the park's wilderness, the best way to take care of those extra millions of visitors is to build that stuff outside the park boundaries. Thats where the space is to build that needed stuff, and that's were the private land is that won't have the Federal government getting in the way of the improvements for plitical reasons.
There will be enough obstruction as it is inside Yellowstone, and I don't expect it to ever be a project the entire Congress will get behind. But I expect any new improvement that does pass will open the tourist floodgates wider.
If Congress decides it best to commit some federal forest land to nee accommodation space, and decides it's a good idea to build those accommodations, that's perfectly fine with me. That's what the did inside the park in the first place, and Congress did a good job of it back then.
But if Congress won't make a full commitment to the improvements, or even the most immediately needed ones, I see no harm in allowing private industry to do the job on private land. Good for them for taking the risk. They deserve the rewards for it.
The tourists will keep coming in greater numbers in either case, and piecemeal repair only makes everything stay half-done, allowing the park to keep on running down. If it can't handle 6 million people this year, how can it handle 7 million people next year any better?
I believe Yellowstone is in dire need of one big, expensive, unified plan to overhaul it. It's going to be hell for expensive; Yellowstone is huge, and it's in constant extremity.
I believe a unified plan to do everything must include the possibility of using of some surrounding federal forest and some private lands that lie next to the park's boundaries to accomplish such a plan if the park's natural wilderness is to be kept as it is now.
Anything that helps Yellowstone at all will bring in more tourists. I don't care if Ashton or West Yellowstone turns into a new Orlando. I also don't care if a bit of those huge federal forests around the park get turned into a bunch of mini-Orlandos either.
The park is special and needs to stay wild the most of all. It's the only ground that should never turn into an Orlando.
And it makes no difference to me where all the tourist money goes. Federal or private, I think the massive accommodations that are needed must be built outside the park, and motor traffic should be totally stopped.
In the end, this little corner of Idaho will make plenty of money, not matter how it's decided.
And since I.F. is doing OK as it is, the extra money we get could potentially cause Idaho Falls more problems than the money is worth if our fast growth explodes.
The money's problems could become a sacrifice. But it's a sacrifice that's worthy for the largest national park in the United States and one of the very finest in the world.
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.
