PDA

View Full Version : AT ... It's Really a Small World



Ridge
06-17-2006, 11:55
I wonder how many hikers realize just how small the AT is? I know theres all kind of variables, towns, wide open fields ect, ect. but I want to just throw out some average widths, an area represented of the actual path and not try to figure in all the other stuff.

10 ft wide x length of trail = 2 sq miles
50 ft wide x length of trail = 4.5 sq miles
100 ft wide x length of trail = 6 sq miles

Relative small areas when you consider all the hikers (on the path) and their gear, (and dogs) always being in it at the same time.

sliderule
06-17-2006, 12:51
Interesting point. But you might want to recheck those numbers.

Ridge
06-17-2006, 12:55
Interesting point. But you might want to recheck those numbers.

I rechecked them, there within a tenth or two.

hammock engineer
06-17-2006, 13:00
(2175 mi long)*(10 ft wide)*(1mi/5280 feet)=4.1193 square mi.

sliderule
06-17-2006, 13:03
I rechecked them, there within a tenth or two.
Could you show me the numbers?

SGT Rock
06-17-2006, 13:16
I came up with 4.12 with a 10' width.

Ridge
06-17-2006, 13:18
Could you show me the numbers?

You are correct, my example describes the distance of one side of a boxed area. Example ;a box ea leg 2miles = 4sq miles or 2 miles squared

SGT Rock
06-17-2006, 13:20
2175 * 10/5280 = 4.12

Programbo
06-17-2006, 13:41
Hmmm..I see your point mathmatically..BUT in your example the farthest apart any two people could be would be 2 miles or so as opposed to the 2,000+ miles they could be apart on the AT.....If there were 2000 hikers in your 4 sqaure mile box that gives a population of 500 per sq miles which would indeed be crowded..But spread out over 2200 miles that`s less than 1 per square mile...Of course with so many people starting in GA within a month combined with just short distance hikers I`m sure it`s way crowded down that way

Ridge
06-17-2006, 13:53
10 ft wide x length of trail = box 2 mi x 2mi = 4 sq miles
50 ft wide x length of trail = box 4.5 mi x 4.5mi = 20 sq miles
100 ft wide x length of trail = box 6mi x 6mi = 36miles

I'm not trying to use to the decimal correct numbers, just ballpark.
I've rounded and only used 2100miles as trail length. Anyway, I stand corrected in my original presentation of the numbers.

I just wanted folks to picture in their heads all the hikers/gear/etc at once in a square area. Setting up camps and then moving around and then setting them up again. It would probably be difficult to stay out of each others way if so. The numbers are still small when you consider all that.

If one had some count on that number of hikers, we could compare density ratios to large cities.

Ridge
06-17-2006, 14:02
.....If there were 2000 hikers in your 4 sqaure mile box that gives a population of 500 per sq miles which would indeed be crowded..But spread out over 2200 miles that`s less than 1 per square mile... ..


Instead of "1 per square mile" don't you mean 1 hiker per mile (1x2200)

hammock engineer
06-17-2006, 14:07
10 ft wide x length of trail = box 2 mi x 2mi = 4 sq miles
50 ft wide x length of trail = box 4.5 mi x 4.5mi = 20 sq miles
100 ft wide x length of trail = box 6mi x 6mi = 36miles

I'm not trying to use to the decimal correct numbers, just ballpark.
I've rounded and only used 2100miles as trail length. Anyway, I stand corrected in my original presentation of the numbers.

I just wanted folks to picture in their heads all the hikers/gear/etc at once in a square area. Setting up camps and then moving around and then setting them up again. It would probably be difficult to stay out of each others way if so. The numbers are still small when you consider all that.

If one had some count on that number of hikers, we could compare density ratios to large cities.

This is a good point. Especailly when you consider the impact on such a small area.

sliderule
06-17-2006, 14:19
This is a good point. Especailly when you consider the impact on such a small area.

Agreed. And if you assume that the footpath itself is 30 inches wide, then the entire trail is only one square mile. Makes it seem like trail maintenance should be child's play, doesn't it? And why should it take 5-6 months to hike one square mile?

Ridge
06-17-2006, 14:20
This is a good point. Especially when you consider the impact on such a small area.

Yea, buried tp comes to mind.

Talking about comparing to population densities of large cities, you really can't do it. The AT is "Single Story"(except for the few 2 storie shelters) the cities "Multi-Story".

SGT Rock
06-17-2006, 15:06
Agreed. And if you assume that the footpath itself is 30 inches wide, then the entire trail is only one square mile. Makes it seem like trail maintenance should be child's play, doesn't it? And why should it take 5-6 months to hike one square mile?

Well when you thing about how that maintenance is done, but hand, and that the distances walked to do the maintenance can be 10 miles of walking round trip to work on a few feet of trail a day.

But less than one square mile (I was going to bring that up) means that the entire AT has less potential for run off and takes up less footprint in that regard than a good sized footprint for a mega mall in Birmingham Alabama.

Ridge
06-17-2006, 16:34
Well, if you take the rear to front dimensions of a hiker w/pack and figure 2160 miles of trail I would say the max numbers of hikers on the trail at one time should be between 3.5 and 4 million hikers. They would have to step in cadence for sure. And, 4 to a tent at night. LOL Oh yea, any Shelter reservation policies will not apply.

bfitz
06-17-2006, 16:44
:confused: Huh?

weary
06-17-2006, 17:58
The "official" figure I hear is 250,000 acres. I'm not sure how that is calculated but I'm guessing it's the acreage owned by the federal government, with maybe an estimate of the state land assumed to be part of the trail.

I think for the state lands in Maine, there is no defined corridor dedicated to the trail. Just an agreement to allow the footpath to go through.

Anyway, 250,000 acres figures out to be around 388 square miles. I would calculate it precisely, but I'm too lazy on a humid Saturday afternoon to look up the square feet in an acre, but it maybe 43,200, or something close to that.

But the trail is still pretty small, a bit bigger than Baxter State Park, a quarter the size of the White Mountain National Forest, and half the size of Maine's long forgotten public lands that were recovered in the decade of 1972-1982.

Around 51 of those square miles of Appalachian Trail are located in Maine -- 33,000 acres divided by 645 acres.

BTW. All these figures are taken from memory and no one should believe any of them, but they aren't too far off, I hope.

Weary

Programbo
06-17-2006, 20:55
Instead of "1 per square mile" don't you mean 1 hiker per mile (1x2200)

Yes..Worded that wrong..Or maybe one per linear mile..I was just picturing the mile distance seperating each hiker and cubing it around them

Just Jeff
06-17-2006, 22:13
...If there were 2000 hikers...

2000 probably includes just thrus and not day hikers, tourons at Clingman's, etc. I'm guessing that, at any one time during the hiking season, there is more than 1 person per mile on the AT.

Point taken, though - just bringing up the numbers.

Dust
06-18-2006, 02:31
Some of you really need to take a hike. How wide the trail is, how many square feet it is, what the correct math for measuring it is ... what a case of cabin fever.

SGT Rock
06-18-2006, 05:13
Guilty. I wish I was hiking.

Anyway, Weary has a great point about the area the AT encompasses thanks to the ATC and National Scenic Trails Act which work to make a corridor of protected land for the trail. It showes the area that the AT protects is quite a bit larger than the trail itself. But I think the point of the initial post was to give an idea of how little the actual area is that something so massively long actually covers. More of a food for though sort of thread.

But thanks to Weary and others like him, there are lands being conserved for future generations. More than the mere 2.12 square miles of dirt trail.

Ridge
06-18-2006, 12:40
Some of you really need to take a hike. How wide the trail is, how many square feet it is, what the correct math for measuring it is ... what a case of cabin fever.

Almost as bad and trivial as the thread "Contract of Wifely Expectations"
at least this thread concerned the AT.

chicote
06-22-2006, 19:14
The "official" figure I hear is 250,000 acres. I'm not sure how that is calculated but I'm guessing it's the acreage owned by the federal government, with maybe an estimate of the state land assumed to be part of the trail.

I think for the state lands in Maine, there is no defined corridor dedicated to the trail. Just an agreement to allow the footpath to go through.

Anyway, 250,000 acres figures out to be around 388 square miles. I would calculate it precisely, but I'm too lazy on a humid Saturday afternoon to look up the square feet in an acre, but it maybe 43,200, or something close to that.

But the trail is still pretty small, a bit bigger than Baxter State Park, a quarter the size of the White Mountain National Forest, and half the size of Maine's long forgotten public lands that were recovered in the decade of 1972-1982.

Around 51 of those square miles of Appalachian Trail are located in Maine -- 33,000 acres divided by 645 acres.

BTW. All these figures are taken from memory and no one should believe any of them, but they aren't too far off, I hope.

Weary

Very close! 250,000 acres is 390.625 miles

Gray Blazer
06-22-2006, 19:21
<TABLE id=HB_Mail_Container height="100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0 UNSELECTABLE="on"><TBODY><TR height="100%" width="100%" UNSELECTABLE="on"><TD id=HB_Focus_Element vAlign=top width="100%" background="" height=250 UNSELECTABLE="off">Gotta add in the blue blazes to springs and shelters and space for the shelters. They are part of the trail.</TD></TR><TR UNSELECTABLE="on" hb_tag="1"><TD style="FONT-SIZE: 1pt" height=1 UNSELECTABLE="on">
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

1Pint
06-22-2006, 22:44
Looking at the ATC's statistics on thru-hikers, the number of people attempting the AT has been shrinking every year. So that means that AT world is getting smaller (fewer people) or bigger (more space between thru-hikers) all the time.

Here's something for you numbers folks:
Assuming the downward trend continues, how many people will likely be starting out from Springer next year?

Here's the base info: (yes, we know it's not exact but it's the best guesstimate ATC's got to offer)
2001 - 2,375 left Springer for Katadhin
2002 - 1,875 left Springer (21% decrease over prior year)
2003 - 1,750 left Springer (6% decrease over prior year)
2004 - 1,535 left Springer (12% decrease over prior year)
2005 - 1,392 left Springer (9% decrease over prior year)
2006 - 1,135 as of 5/10/06 (18% decrease or less if late starters are added)

So, how large is the class of 2007 likely to be at the start?

LostInSpace
06-22-2006, 22:54
My guess is 887.

D'Artagnan
06-23-2006, 09:05
If Jane leaves the station on a train heading east at 48 miles per hour and Bobby leaves.... Sorry, just couldn't resist. We now return you to your regularly-scheduled broadcast. ;)

Fofer
06-23-2006, 16:02
If Jane leaves the station on a train heading east at 48 miles per hour and Bobby leaves.... Sorry, just couldn't resist. We now return you to your regularly-scheduled broadcast. ;)

37 min!!!!

mweinstone
06-23-2006, 17:02
dosnt that mess with your calculations?i allwasys said i could be happy in a small backyard for the rest of my life i could be happy studying all the flowers and worms. it dosnt take much to make me happy. the trail is worth its weight in gold to me. if it was 100 miles wide or 12 inches the whole way, love love love it.

atraildreamer
06-24-2006, 01:15
Agreed. And if you assume that the footpath itself is 30 inches wide, then the entire trail is only one square mile. Makes it seem like trail maintenance should be child's play, doesn't it? And why should it take 5-6 months to hike one square mile?

You are thinking of a square. The maximum distance across the 1 square mile is 1.414 miles, across the diagonal. Anyone can hike that in 20-30 minutes, or less.

Think of strips. :rolleyes:

If the trail is considered to be 10 feet wide, then a 1 square mile block can be considered to be made up of 528 (5,280 feet/10 feet) strips lying side by side. Hook these strips together end-to-end and your 1 square mile is now a path that is 528 miles long!:eek:

Do this for 4 square miles and your path (trail) is now 2,112 miles long!:eek: :eek:

nhalbrook
06-24-2006, 11:03
Now add to that the ca440,000 up and down elevation changes [almost 8 round trips on Everest]!

sliderule
06-24-2006, 12:14
You are thinking of a square.
:rolleyes:

!:eek: :eek:
Sorry, I guess I got confused. I have been mixed up ever since the fifth grade, when the teacher said "Pie are square." I said "No, ma'am. Pie are round. Cornbread are square."

atraildreamer
06-25-2006, 00:57
Sorry, I guess I got confused. I have been mixed up ever since the fifth grade, when the teacher said "Pie are square." I said "No, ma'am. Pie are round. Cornbread are square."

PI...totally irrational...but well rounded! :-?

bogey
06-25-2006, 03:04
If Jane leaves the station on a train heading east at 48 miles per hour and Bobby leaves.... Sorry, just couldn't resist. We now return you to your regularly-scheduled broadcast. ;)

Wednesday!

atraildreamer
06-25-2006, 07:14
You are thinking of a square. The maximum distance across the 1 square mile is 1.414 miles, across the diagonal. Anyone can hike that in 20-30 minutes, or less.

Think of strips.

If the trail is considered to be 10 feet wide, then a 1 square mile block can be considered to be made up of 528 (5,280 feet/10 feet) strips lying side by side. Hook these strips together end-to-end and your 1 square mile is now a path that is 528 miles long!

Do this for 4 square miles and your path (trail) is now 2,112 miles long!

Now if we apply some hyperdimensional physics (sorry...too much of the Art Bell show :p ) take each end of these strips (at mile 0 and mile 2112) flip one end over and attach it to the other end, we now have a Moebius strip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3% B6bius_strip) trail. Such a trail would eliminate the decision to be a NOBO, or a SOBO, as you would always arrive back at where you started, eventually, no matter which direction you travelled.

It might be a little disconcerting to pass another hiker and come face to face with him later on down the trail, but we are adaptable.

Where would this type of trail be located? :-? Somewhere between the Twilight Zone and the Outer Limits ! :banana

sliderule
06-25-2006, 16:23
Now if we apply some hyperdimensional physics (sorry...too much of the Art Bell show :p ) take each end of these strips (at mile 0 and mile 2112) flip one end over and attach it to the other end, we now have a Moebius strip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3% B6bius_strip) trail. Such a trail would eliminate the decision to be a NOBO, or a SOBO, as you would always arrive back at where you started, eventually, no matter which direction you travelled.

:banana
I'm feeling less irrational all the time!!!

atraildreamer
06-25-2006, 21:28
I'm feeling less irrational all the time!!!

A lot of my posts are the result of working a boring, night-shift job on the weekends. :( The one advantage is that I have a lot of free time to surf the www. Lack of sleep and too much coffee often leads to a warped mind. :bananaThis is often reflected in my posts! :jump

Whiteblaze, and the other forums, help me to keep my sanity intact (usually!):datz

Nokia
06-25-2006, 21:35
Looking at the ATC's statistics on thru-hikers, the number of people attempting the AT has been shrinking every year. So that means that AT world is getting smaller (fewer people) or bigger (more space between thru-hikers) all the time.

Here's something for you numbers folks:
Assuming the downward trend continues, how many people will likely be starting out from Springer next year?

Here's the base info: (yes, we know it's not exact but it's the best guesstimate ATC's got to offer)
2001 - 2,375 left Springer for Katadhin
2002 - 1,875 left Springer (21% decrease over prior year)
2003 - 1,750 left Springer (6% decrease over prior year)
2004 - 1,535 left Springer (12% decrease over prior year)
2005 - 1,392 left Springer (9% decrease over prior year)
2006 - 1,135 as of 5/10/06 (18% decrease or less if late starters are added)

So, how large is the class of 2007 likely to be at the start?

Of that number this year over 400 folks have already made it to Harpers Ferry. I think the ATC needs to find a better way to tabulate the number of people who start. Perhaps have a official sign in sheet in the rock on Springer. Don't know. But based on this number over 50% of folks who started are going to make it to at least Harpers Ferry (still more hikers arriving every day). :rolleyes:

Ewker
06-25-2006, 22:00
Of that number this year over 400 folks have already made it to Harpers Ferry. I think the ATC needs to find a better way to tabulate the number of people who start. Perhaps have a official sign in sheet in the rock on Springer. Don't know. But based on this number over 50% of folks who started are going to make it to at least Harpers Ferry (still more hikers arriving every day). :rolleyes:

Isn't there someone (ridge runner) at Springer who tries to get a head count. How many don't sign the journal at Springer. I don't think there is anyway you can make people sign an official sign in sheet. I doubt the number 1135 is even close to being accurate.

dperry
06-26-2006, 00:56
One thing this discussion points out is that trails (and not just Appalachian trails, but bike trails and so forth) are a very efficient use of public park money. A relatively small amount of land acquisition provides benefits for a large number of people.

In relation to population density, the NPS estimates that 3 to 4 million people use the AT each year. Splitting the difference, 3.5 million/2,175 miles/365 days = 4.4 people/mile/day. This, of course, will vary greatly depending on circumstances; for instance, the 4 miles between the summit of Bear Mountain and the Inn parking lot get something like 400,000 users each year, and of course, many more people use the Trail in summer than winter.


PI...totally irrational...but well rounded!

Not to mention transcendental. :D

1Pint
06-26-2006, 08:56
Of that number this year over 400 folks have already made it to Harpers Ferry. I think the ATC needs to find a better way to tabulate the number of people who start. Perhaps have a official sign in sheet in the rock on Springer. Don't know. But based on this number over 50% of folks who started are going to make it to at least Harpers Ferry (still more hikers arriving every day). :rolleyes:

If ATC's figures, while not an exact count, are a reasonable sampling and therefore reflective of the whole story... About 50% do typically make it to the halfway point and then half of those folks drop before then end, leaving a thru-hike completion rate for the last several years consistently around 24%.

The years when only 10% finished the entire trail are behind us. My theory is that sites like WB have done a great job in educating people about what to expect, so fewer people are going in without a clue. I guess it could be something else.

Nightwalker
06-26-2006, 15:16
About 50% do typically make it to the halfway point and then half of those folks drop before then end, leaving a thru-hike completion rate for the last several years consistently around 24%.
It seems like 20-25% drop out at or before Neel Gap. That's totally unscientific, and just based on three years of doing GA during the Spring Rush.

There's no true way to count, I guess, save the Avery Cows (http://www.backcountry.net/arch/at/0104/msg01181.html)* method






*Thanks, Teej. That's still the funniest inside joke that I've seen in years...