Mountain Project Logo

Update on McDowell Mountains Access

ErikF · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2009 · Points: 71

p.s.

We will be installing the trail signs on TT#3 and TT#5, as well as signs near Tom's Thumb.

TT#3 is a climbers' trail that goes across the wash toward Fort McDowell, Half and Half and Lost Wall climbing crags. At the top of the ridge (near Lost Wall), it loops back east along the ridge line to Tom's Thumb too. Although the trail is not as wide and graded as the main City Tom's Thumb trail, it takes me roughly the same time to get to Tom's Thumb doing that western loop as the regular trail(See map above).

Yes, TT#5 is the approach from the Tom's Thumb trail to Gardeners, but you can also go from the bottom of Gardeners climbers' right and follow a climbers' path up to Tom's Thumb. Because it involves the "scrambling" to get to the bottom of Gardeners, some folks I've talked to actually prefer the slightly longer but more developed City Tom's Thumb trail just because of how each trail was built.

That makes 3 ways now to get to Tom's Thumb. Pick your poison!

Here is the type of sign we will be installing:

North Access Area trail sign to Morrell's

ErikF · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2009 · Points: 71

Thank you, David, Manny and Shiloh, and Scott Hamilton from the City. You guys did awesome work today.

We installed a total of 7 climber trail signs along the Main Tom's Thumb trail and spur over to Tom's Thumb itself.

And, thank you, Access Fund, for providing the grant monies.

Happy Thanksgiving, all!
Erik

Climber's spur trail sign to Gardeners Wall

ErikF · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2009 · Points: 71

Hi folks,

I bumped into climbers in the McDowells from Wisconsin, Oregon, and New York yesterday. Hopefully everyone is loving the granite. Recently
I have received some questions as to the best way to get to the new temporary trailheads. Here are two options that may be less well known that the Rio Verde Drive to 128th street approach. Both save 15 minutes of more travel time.

Approach 1 (this will go away sometime in the future when a neighborhood is gated)

From the 4-way stop sign at Happy Valley Road and 104th/Alma School intersection:
East on Happy Valley
Right on Alameda
Right on 119th Way to a stop-sign T-intersection
Left on Casitas Del Rio
When Casitas Del Rio splits into a "Y", take the left hand alternative to the top of the hill. The pavement ends and you are on a passenger car friendly dirt road. This is El Paraiso.
East on El Paraiso past the 128th Street intersection (coming in from left)
Follow city signs to Temporary Tom's Thumb trailhead or follow El Paraiso to end of road just short of old Sven Slab parking area.

Alternative 2 (will be permanent access)

From the 4-way stop sign at Happy Valley Road and 104th/Alma School intersection:
East on Happy Valley Road.
Continue on Happy Valley turns northerly (at some point that road may change names)
Right on Ranch Gate Road to head directly east (paved to entrance to Sereno Canyon housing project)
A short distance further east Ranch Gate intersects 128th Street.
Follow 128th Street south until it intersects with El Paraiso.
Go to either Temporary Tom's Thumb parking or to Temporary Sven Slab parking as desired.

I have a photo/map that didn't upload correctly just now, so if someone wants it email me at smorefil (at) aol (dot) com

Have fun!
Erik

ErikF · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2009 · Points: 71

I had to rescan the map and make it smaller for posting. Here is a graphic of what is described above. Remember that Rio Verde/Dynamite to 128th Street is another, but 15 to 20 minute longer route for folks coming from the south.

Road Access to Temporary Parking in North McDowells

ErikF · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2009 · Points: 71

Update on North Access Area planning

Monday night the City of Scottsdale Preserve Commission met and the City staff and Planner hired by the City to plan the North Access Area presented the results of their preliminary site analysis. They stated that from this point forward, they will continue the site analysis, hold a climber focus group sometime after the first of the year, followed by a public open house where all can attend, followed by a 30% plan submittal to the Design Review Board (DRB). The Commission will be updated prior to the DRB review, and periodic updates will be provided throughout the process. Construction is expected to begin in the late summer 2010 and be complete in mid 2011. Staff pointed out that the early planning that occurred was years ago, and did not include any level of site analysis, thus did not consider the extreme slopes and drainage constraints of the site, and related costs both financial and environmental. That is what they are doing now.

(Note: this was the first time I had seen these plans and I didn't know ahead of time what was going to be presented. I am simply providing you with information and am not trying to argue for the City in any way. The City and Planner are not yet done with their recommendations, but my feeling is that the result of the meeting was that some decisions appear to be fairly well along. Please keep in mind that the major goal I think all of us has – keeping the historic rock climbing – has been achieved already and that this discussion is only about where we will be able to park and where the trails to the climbing areas will start. I might also note that Staff has repeatedly stated that this will be a long process and that this is just the starting point.).

The Planning team (architects, engineers, etc) presented their preliminary analysis of the opportunities and constraints of the site. The main constraints they took into account related to the topography, but also potential costs. They presented an analysis of how the site alternatives might affect the user groups - climbers, horse riding, mountain biking, and hiking. The main constraints to the site were the washes that run predominantly from southwest to northeast and drain the whole mountain facade. They included graphics that showed the various drainage paths. The biggest constraints were two major washes that show on a 100-year flood plain map. As climbers, we know where these are because they produce the largest wash-outs of the east-west dirt road (El Paraiso).

The City stated that they are planning for 100 parking spaces now, but allow for up to 200 in the future if the need warrants. The Planner presented 4 possible alternatives, and then presented a matrix rating the feasibility of each of the 4 sites, given their criteria. Site A was roughly where the new Temporary Tom's Thumb parking is. Site B was roughly the Sven Slab parking. Sites C and D overlapped El Paraiso closer to the intersection of 128th Street and El Paraiso (further west and north of where the temporary parking is).

The biggest constraints for the City and the Planner with both Sites A and B are the two 100-year floodplain washes that cross those sites. They stated, to the Commission, that it might cost an extra $1.25 million to build either of those sites because all weather access is required per the Fire Department regulations.

These public hearings are a very formal process (I attended the whole meeting from 5:00 p.m. to 8:45 p.m. just to make sure that all climber issues were heard.) I filled out a Public Comment card and was allowed to speak. Here are roughly the points I made (not having prepared ahead of time, I'm sure that ideally I might have been able to say something better). The process did not result in anyone asking me any follow-up questions.

1. The climbing community appreciates the good working relationship we have had with the City.

2. This area is a major rock climbing resource and climbers come here from all over the country (I had recently met climbers there from NYC, Wisconsin and Oregon).

3. Given the Pinnacle Peak experience, the climbers would prefer to have as large a parking allotment as possible. The 200 spots identified at PPP probably are in the ball park for what the North Access Area will demand.

4. I stated that in my opinion Climbers would prefer parking access as close as possible to the historic parking, which was much closer to the crags than seemed to be the rated higher Alternatives C and D. (In fairness to Staff, C and D were ranked highest based on the outcome of the detailed site analysis that took many aspects into account, like topography, wildlife habitat, viewshed impacts, user access, financial implications, etc.)

5. I asked them to consider splitting the parking into parking nodes, with maybe some of the nodes closer to the historic climbers' parking areas.

6. I suggested they look at a split of the facilities, maybe with the major buildings and infrastructure closer to 128th Street to minimize costs, but that with wet crossings of the washes the remote parking nodes could be considered. I also suggested that bridges might not be needed if they would consider culverts to pass the drainage under key road wash-outs.

After I was done the Staff and Planner responded and heard Commissioners' comments. Of note, the Staff stated that the Fire Department would not want wet crossings of major washes because of emergency requirements of the City - they don't want folks stranded on the other side of a wash where they can't get to them. Some commissioners liked the idea of the Parking Nodes, while others wanted to keep "all that stuff" in one place to minimize impact on the Preserve. Some commissioners also stated that they like the parking pulled back to minimize human impacts in general.

All in all I wasn't necessarily totally surprised, but I was disappointed at the problems identified in the detail site analysis with what were the conceptual plans for the North Access Area (the parking basically where the temporary parking is). It would have been nice to at least park where we can park now. I’m trying to keep in mind that we will still be able to climb and that the City has been very supportive of the rock climbing plans.

If you have any comments or concerns, feel free to express them to me at smorefil (at) aol (dot) com. I know that you can also direct questions and comments to the key City staff person, Scott Hamilton, at SHamilton (at) ScottsdaleAz (dot) gov.

Erik

Fred AmRhein · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2007 · Points: 512
Greg wrote:(TEMPORARY) parking by Morrell's Wall Parking Lot area to get up to Tom's Thumb.
Greg,

Where on this map is the current temporary parking area? Is it near the "0.5" mark on that trail?

Thanks,

Fred
ErikF · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2009 · Points: 71

Hi folks,

Before everyone gets too much aggrieved, the map I put up on Nov 18 (page 2 above) is the latest official city map of the detail of the North Access Area that we have. The excerpt you put up, Greg, is from the fold-out (whole) Preserve map that measures about 4" by 12" folded. It is given out to the General Public and gives the main Conceptual Trails Plan of the City with only the major trails shown. That overview Map has been out for about a year and is available at all the trailheads in kiosks.

As this thread indicates, there are further discussions involved with the specific site planning of the North Access Area, but the exact location of the trailhead has not been established. The City chose a little while back not to put all the climber paths on the "general publics" maps, so not as to attract non-climbers to those paths. Indeed, there are levels of maps which go into greater or lesser detail of the Preserve Trail system.

What Greg put up is the older version of the Conceptual Trails map before we were able to get into the new Temporary Parking area by Morrell's Wall, which as Fred asks, is about .5 miles from the northernmost reach of the old conceptual Tom's Thumb Trail near Sven Slab, as best as I can decipher from the map shown.

I was out there today and there were 17 cars parked right at the furtherest trailhead under Morrell's Wall, and another 19 cars parked a hundred yards back down at the additional parking temporary trailhead. Both are about half a mile from the temporary Sven Slab parking.

We need to stay vigilant, and I think that more is to come shortly. If anyone else hears something, please let me know so I can doublecheck with the City.

thanks,
Erik

ErikF · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2009 · Points: 71

Hi folks,

Quick update -- tonight (Wed, Jan 27) the City of Scottsdale held a Climbers' Focus Group on the North Access Area. Their goal seemed to be to present their current plans and receive feedback on what climbers want and what they don't want in a small group setting of the focus group. City staff lead the meeting and stated certain parameters, e.g., Preserve Mission, Ordinance, budget constraints, design constraints, etc.

The City had done a pretty good job of inviting a broad cross-section of climbers. First names and initials of invitees in attendance included Catherine C., Marty K., Greg O., Deke J., Kathi R., Paul D., John K., Erik F., Manny R., and Mike K. There also was a guide there named Seth whom I just met. Hopefully those folks can chip in to this discussion and clarify points they feel are important. I know Tom K. (of Tom's Thumb fame) was traveling but submitted written comments which paralleled pretty much what this group shared about maintaining the remote feel and primitive nature.

As anticipated in prior posts, some of the plans presented for the actual parking, etc., are not what most climbers were hoping for. High concerns voiced related to the distance parking was removed from historic parking (now near 128th and El Paraiso), the adequacy of parking so that people aren't forced out, putting several parking nodes versus big parking lots, keeping the remote feeling to the place, adequate climber access, night time closures, policy flexibility, etc. Hopefully other folks who attended can share their perspectives on what took place. There were comments about understanding the Preserve and not overusing it.

Paul asked after the formal meeting ended what was the process forward. I believe staff said: a full public meeting for all interested parties in March, finalizing the plans and submitting bid packages for construction to the City in July, construction over next winter and an opening in the Spring of 2011.

IMO, a pretty good meeting with City staff indicating an interest in what they heard and a promise to consider our concerns. Whether they are able to accommodate our requests I'm a little less optimistic about.

Personally, I'd like to reiterate the goal of being able to continue to climb on all the historic crags. We need to be thankful for that while dealing with the issues raised.

If you have input, talk to one of the folks who attended and/or attend the next public meeting.

Erik

Fred AmRhein · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2007 · Points: 512
ErikF wrote:IMO, a pretty good meeting with City staff indicating an interest in what they heard and a promise to consider our concerns. Whether they are able to accommodate our requests I'm a little less optimistic about. Personally, I'd like to reiterate the goal of being able to continue to climb on all the historic crags. We need to be thankful for that while dealing with the issues raised. If you have input, talk to one of the folks who attended and/or attend the next public meeting. Erik
Greg and Erik,

I'm having a really hard time reconciling the different views that the two of you have provided of the same meeting.

How does a meeting get characterized as being "pretty good" (Erik) when an attendee to that same meeting (Greg) comes away with information that indicates the trailhead is getting moved FURTHER out?

The previously released trailhead location (as Greg's map from the visitor's center showed that he posted above) was already considered too far out by many.

Can you guys explain?

Also, I read the "goal" that Erik has articulated, but whose goal is this? Erik's? The AMC's? The greater local climbing community?

I've voiced my input over the years about the access to that area and I don't ever recall saying that just "being able to climb on all the historic crags" was the only important part of the access concerns out there or the only "goal."

A very large part of my input has been that reasonable hiking distances and ample parking for the obvious crush of users (see Pinnacle Peak) was needed. (As well as a climber's panel for new routes, anchor replacement, etc.)

Maybe the "goal" for the climbers needs to be more vigorously defined . . . and advocated for?

Glad to see that a broader swath of the climbing community has finally been allowed to voice concerns. I hope you gave them an ear full.

Fred
Tradster · · Phoenix, AZ · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 0

With the distance implied by Greg's post, no one will climb at Tom's Thumb, and Gardener's Wall. It quadruples the walk just to Morrell's Wall.

roman d · · Pasadena, CA · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 915

It looks like the proposed parking area adds about a half mile to the existing approaches from Morrell's parking lot, 10-15 min max on a flat road. Annoying, but for me a bigger deal is after dusk access.

ClimbPHX.com · · Mesa AZ · Joined Jan 2006 · Points: 1,135

What was the point of making a trail, putting in the signage and then moving the ability to attain the trailhead?

David E. · · Mesa, AZ · Joined Jun 2007 · Points: 5

1st goal - Preserve climbing in the McDowell's.
If the Scottsdale City Council doesn’t allow any climbing the Preserve, does it really matter where they put a parking lot? 1st goal accomplished!

2nd goal - Work with the City to arrange a parking lot with reasonable access the climbing area's.
I certainly hope the City of Scottsdale comes up with a more reasonable solution than the proposed single parking area at Paraiso and 128th. Since the City put so much time, effort, and money to have the new trail built and start at the current Morrell’s parking area, it would seem ridiculous to move the trailhead to a completely different section of the Preserve. I like the suggestion to have split parking area's with the main one at Paraiso and 128th, and the second parking area at the current Morrell's Wall area. With the option to close off the Morrell's parking area in the event of flooding.

Tradster · · Phoenix, AZ · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 0

Greg:

I modified my post, but let's be real here. The city of Scottsdale just doesn't seem that interested in our particular use requirements. Having to be out by dusk, lengthening the trail access, just seems to indicate that they really don't care about us as a user group. In reality, very few people will bother to climb anywhere out there except Svens Slab, and some nearby areas. People will go to places that don't have these restrictions. The restrictions are rather arbitrary in light of how Phoenix manages most all of their park system. Only Camelback has any kind of time restriction based upon when dusk arrives. I'm just stating facts. Sure the climbing is saved, but they just are making it really difficult to safely and conveniently utilize the space as a climbing resource.

Tradster · · Phoenix, AZ · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 0

The biggest issue for me is the dusk cut-off time. If I have a mechanical breakdown on my bike, and parked at Gateway, I'm locked-in and can't even get out. That is plainly ridiculous. If I parked at McDowell Mountain Regional Park, no problemo. Put in tire slashers as Phoenix has done and problem solved. But, no, they lock the gate and you are screwed because your vehicle is trapped until the next morning. Here's an example: a climber sprains an ankle, and must hobble out (I've had this happen at Morrell's Wall)and arrives past dark and is locked in. What if it is a life threatening injury, and your cell phone is dead? It is an attitude that the city doesn't care how much it may inconvenience people who use the facility. It is great that Scottsdale has these meetings, but aside from much more restrictive access, they seem to result in more negative impact on the user base.

ErikF · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2009 · Points: 71

Great discussion. As Greg says, now is the time to be an informed and involved citizen who speaks up respectfully and firmly.

Tradster,

You might want to call Scott Hamilton at the City about the night time closure issue. Greg (or others at the meeting) can double check my impression, but I didn't exactly hear, "Lock them in." I think they made some distinctions between what their goals were and what the goals were/are at Pinnacle Peak Park, where neighbors immediately adjacent complain at the drop of a hat. Indeed I was at an evening function at the Gateway recently until well after dark and when I drove out the gate was closed but like those in gated communities automatically opened when I approached. I didn't have to get out of my car; it just opened and then closed back up. If that's their model, then if someone inside the gate always can leave. I suspect the risk would be if someone is patroling the parking lots after dark and finds you and/or your car, but again, I didn't hear the Pinnacle Peak type of rigidity.

But please double check and let us know what he says.

Erik

Dief · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Sep 2007 · Points: 0

I was at the meeting and I thought it went very well. Are we going to get everything our craggin hearts desire. Nope. Most important - we have retained access to all of the existing crags. The city has put in trails just for climbers. They were very receptive to adding a few more connector trails that Marty pointed out. I think Scottsdale has done a great job of working with climbers.

When I first started climbing in 75 I could park next to the trail at Camelback anytime I wanted - even on weekends. If I saw someone else on the mountain I most likely knew them. I've spent the night (on purpose) on top of the Monk and Pinnacle Peak - can't do that any more. I used to be able to drive all the way to the base of the hill below Gardners Wall. It was wetter back then and the spring was usually flowing - a very magical place. It would be nice if nothing ever changed but people keep moving to Arizona and making babies. With increased population comes more users and thus a greater need to protect the land. That is just a fact of life. The trailhead to Granite Mountain (Prescott) was moved further out many years ago and folks still climb there.

The parking lot as planned is less than 1/2 mile further out than the temporary one. If you can't walk the extra 1900 feet you ain't gonna make it up the hill to the crags anyway. We have to be realistic. A special parking lot closer to the crags "for climbers only" will not work. Don't get me wrong. I'm not thrilled about the changes but I can't think of another workable solution.

The way I try to look at these situations is to ask myself: What would I think if I was from out of town visiting the area for the first time with no knowledge of the the way it used to be - would I be happy with the parking and the access? Yes I would.

Climbing with a few "hassles" is still far better than not climbing at all.

Paul "too many pink bald apes running around" Dief

Tradster · · Phoenix, AZ · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 0

I'll call Scott Hamilton and nicely voice my thoughts. ErikF, thanks for the heads up regarding Gateway. I just assumed it would be like Pinnacle and got my butt out prior to dusk. I can live with that model...open automatically when leaving after dusk. Thanks to all who could attend. My job has kept me from going to these meetings as of late. Greg, thanks for the 104th and Bell beta. I'll try that next time.

karabin museum · · phoenix. AZ · Joined Aug 2009 · Points: 1,670

#1 I am glad to still be climbing in the McDowells! It could have been jammed in with million dollar houses closing off the climbing completely like Troon or Carefree was. Local city climbers over the years have become too comfortable with the short hikes to the crag. An extra mile will not kill yous if you plan on going to Toms Thumb to climb. Are we not outdoor activists? In most cases the ability to be an outdoor climber also involves the hike to get to the climbs. Get out of bed a little earlier, have your lunch ready and pack your gear the night before, forget the Starbucks morning visit, arrive at the gate 15 minutes before it opens and you already have gained an few extra hours in your day.
Sure a closer parking area would be nice, but if you remember the rains we used to get in Arizona 12 years ago, any parking lot they create closer to the crags will get destroyed by the intense water flow rushing off of that mountain. If people don't like the extra hiking distance that only means one thing to me, no climbing crowds to deal with! Toms Thumb is a awesome place to be climbing at especially when nobody else is around!
I too attended the City of Scottsdale meeting, and my biggest complaint was the dawn to dusk problem. I don't mind the dawn, but the Dusk needs to be lengthened. Sprained ankles do happen with climbers and hikers and animals! This City Park is 40+ miles of trails long.

If the City truly plans to trap your vehicle in the parking lot because you were late getting off of the Mountain, then they better install a campfire ring in that parking lot because there is nowhere to walk to in that area! Forcing people and small children to walk 15 miles to the nearest store can create a HUGE problem for the City. Like lawsuit time! And that is if you even know where the store is located!

Rock On! Marty

karabin museum · · phoenix. AZ · Joined Aug 2009 · Points: 1,670

Greg,

I have not said that I am giving up on anything. Okay so put the parking lot West of the major Gardners Wall wash. Now you have the two mile hike to Sven Slab. That Gardners wash will require millions and millions to build a bridge to cross it. At least this is what I heard from the City of Scottsdale Folks. They are working presently to accomodate all user groups on the "Non existing" budget that they have. You can complain all you want but this issue will all come down to money. It may be more constructive at this time to work with what they have and get future access and parking possibilities locked down legally in the paperwork, so when they have the money they "will" expand on these other locations. Already their proposed main parking area for their grand opening is not big enough. Now lets add 500,000 more houses to the area and see what congestion that will bring.

I believe that the City of Scottsdale put together a working group to work on the problems. From your wordage it sounds like you are the one that is throwing in the towel. I feel that the City of Scottsdale presented themselves in a very professional manner. Not once did they say NO to anything we mentioned. Once they finish digesting all of our requests, this will give us a better idea of what will be offered as results to the climbers wish lists. I look forward to the next meeting.

Rock On! Marty

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Arizona & New Mexico
Post a Reply to "Update on McDowell Mountains Access"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.