Question about the bridge at Big Branch -AT VT

[Fox]

Has anyone been through this section recently? Does anyone know if the replacement is on time?

I contacted GMC and didn't get a response. Then after a second email chiding them for ignoring me I got a response that told me they would forward my inquiry to a field rep. That was 4 days ago.

I'm leaving soon for a week on the AT and I'll be passing through this area. Any information would be most helpful and seriously appreciated.

Thanks -

 

[MichaelJ]

One still had to ford the Big Branch on July 25. Sorry I don't have more recent information.

 

[Maddy]

Try the Manchester District Ranger office.
I have always found them to be most helpful.
Manchester-802 362 2307

 

[Fox]

Thank you both for responding so quickly. Shortly after posting this I received a response from GMC (coincidence ). They report the completion of the bridge is on schedule and anticipate it being completed and open over Labor Day weekend.

Thanks again.

 

[pedxing]

I forded this 10 days ago doing the LT. Unless there have been massive amounts of rain, this is not going to be a ford - its a rock hop. My mid-size dog managed it without getting wet. My wife who has complained about difficult stream crossings in the past, crossed happily. The big branch is a rocky creek with swimming holes and I have meandered back and forth across it a few times in summer and could not imagine having a difficult time crossing at the bridge site so I skipped the bypass. At no time have I encountered it in a state where I could get wet without a) wanting to, or b) slipping. I'm not sure how much rain it would take to change things, but having confirmed my memories with a little research - I determined there was no way I would even consider the bypass route in the absence of very heavy rain in the day or two before the crossing.

There is a lot of annoyance amongst AT hikers over the dire sounding warnings about the "ill advised attempt to ford" and the shelter to the north is full of sarcastic comments about barely surviving the torrents. As much as I love the GMC and the long trail (I am a member and a volunteer for them) - I think they sacrificed some credibility through grossly inaccurate statements about the crossing. I spoke to a few folks on the trail who had been very nervous about ignoring the warnings and then found the crossing to be laughable.

Of course there is always risk in crossing over rounded and possibly wet boulders - but, absent heavy rain, this would not rank as one of the more difficult or risky sections of trail for anyone who has done much hiking on the LT, northern New Englan AT or anywhere in the Whites.

 

[Fox]

Thanks pedxing, for taking the time to write that out. You have address my primary concern without me actually expressing it. I hike with my small mixed border collie and was worried, especially due to the GMC web page warning "Big Branch Brook is a big, swift-running river with high water volume at all times." that he might be in peril if I didn't take the reroute.

I'll be confidently plodding straight up the AT/LT, bridge or no bridge.

Thanks again.

 

[peakbagger]

It is interesting the GMC went to all the trouble to advertise the lack of bridge when there are several crossings in Maine that probably have a more significant risk factor as they have never had a bridge. I expect it was the USFS that made sure the warnings were worded the way they were, maybe its the same person who did the signage for the Pemi bridge removal

 

[RoySwkr]

I think they sacrificed some credibility through grossly inaccurate statements about the crossing.

I think closing the route was the correct decision but the PR was poor.

Obviously there are times when it is unsafe to cross or they wouldn't be replacing the bridge, most of them are in the spring but heavy rain can occur in the summer. Construction can occur more smoothly without passersby, and supplies and tools are less likely to disappear. And you don't want somebody to get hurt attempting to cross on temporary falsework.

The issue is with white-liners who feel they must walk every inch of the official LT/AT, regardless of floods, forest fires, or blowdowns. Providing misleading information to discourage them was not wise as it will only increase hiker contempt for managing organizations.

A better choice would have been to designate the Old Job Trail as the official route for the 2010 season, which it was when I hiked the LT before the present route was built. It would have taken 2 people a day to switch the white and blue blazes, and then the FS and white-liners could both have been happy.

 

[pedxing]

Roy I agree with most of that well articulated analysis including the legitimacy of not wanting people fording at a construction site. However, the Old Job trail still requires a crossing at the bridge site, so they would still need the long road walk + part of Old Job.

 

[peakbagger]

Roy's comments about the AT official route and some peoples adherence to it is pretty accurate. I have encoutered several thruhikers who when dropped off on the opposite side of the road dfrom where they got off the trail will immediately walk to the other side so they didnt skip a section of the trail. I have also seen folks that will back track to a summit or skip it if the official white blaze doesnt go over the summit ( Several of the presidentials are like that). Usually the obsession is most apparent down south but I have seen instances in the whites.

 

[Caveman77]

A white blaze was painted on the side of the boat which ferries hikers over the Kennebec River in Maine because purists still forded the river thinking that was the official route and that sitting in a ferry was cheating.

Peakbagger describes me well. I'm guilty of that purism too! I did most of the NH AT, except for the 1500 feet that detours around Jefferson. I'll hike that stretch next time I'm up there (although it's a very low priority).

Peakbaggers seek the true summit, a sign, canister, USGS marker, or summit cairn to bag the peak. Thruhikers follow the blazes -- sometimes even when there's a posted detour (like the one around the halfway marker in PA, or the one through the polluted land over Palmerton PA, or the US-7 Bridge over the Housatonic River in CT).

And Roy has the solution. Reblaze the old trail and put up signs saying the AT has been moved back to the original trail. I once calmed a SOBO thruhiker who took the wrong trail descending from Franconia Ridge down by letting him know that he just followed "the original trail." Similarly I let a NOBO know the Tuckerman's Ravine was the original trail so it would be ok if he didn't loop over the Northern Pressies on this August day with 85 mph wind gusts and temps in the 30s-40s F. That was a more convincing argument to him than any mention of hypothermia or difficult footing.

Steve

 

[pedxing]

Caveman and Roy:

Is the original trail significantly different than the current Old Job trail? The current Old Job Trail - which is to my memory pretty much the same as the original does not avoid the bridge and construction site in question.

If there is a trail only solution why would the USFS and GMC send people along a 6 mile road walk (USFS 30 + USFS 10)?

 

[Caveman77]

However, the Old Job trail still requires a crossing at the bridge site, so they would still need the long road walk + part of Old Job.

Ah, now that I read my map, I see that you are right. The Old Job Trail ends just before the suspension bridge; so detouring the LT onto it doesn't accomplish anything -- you still end up needing to ford the river or doing a road walk.

Is the original trail significantly different than the current Old Job trail?

I wasn't referring to an original Old Job Trail and a current Old Job Trail. Rather, I was referring to the current Old Job Trail having been the original route of the Long Trail. (Sorry. I wasn't clear earlier because I didn't know what I was talking about earlier.)

Anyway, my point was that a detour onto a trail that was once the official AT route is more palatable to some hikers than a detour onto some random road or trail. (But that doesn't really apply in this case.)

Steve

 

[pedxing]

I think you're right that changing the blazing would be enough to change the minds of the die hard white blaze purists - even for a six mile road walk. It might have even persuaded some who were more ambivalent about holding fast to the white blazes.

I'm not sure what would have changed my mind - given that the road walk looked unpleasant and - per my memory of Big Branch - more dangerous than crossing before or after the construction site.

 

[RoySwkr]

>Is the original trail significantly different than the current Old Job
>trail? The current Old Job Trail - which is to my memory pretty much
>the same as the original does not avoid the bridge and construction
>site in question.

Since I last hiked the N Branch of the Old Job Trail over 40 years ago when it was still the Long Trail, I have no clue on where it joined the present Long Trail. The USGS map shows a lot more crossings than the Long Trail Guide admits to.

I was looking at connecting to FR-322 instead, if the apparent double crossing exists a short connector (which may even already exist) could be used to avoid it.
http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=43.35695,-72.92939&z=15&t=T&marker0=43.32285,-72.93566

>If there is a trail only solution why would the USFS and GMC send
>people along a 6 mile road walk (USFS 30 + USFS 10)?

You will have to ask them but I can think of 2 possibilities:
* They don't expect anyone to actually do it but having an alternate eliminates liability at the bridge crossing
* Planners assume that hikers like to hike, and pointless walks on or parallel to roads are as good as alpine ridges - think Whitehouse Trail, relocated Skookumchuck