PDA

View Full Version : What's tougher the PCT or the AT?



rocko23
07-30-2009, 03:37
Has anyone here hiked both the PCT and the AT? If so, which did you find the bigger challenge and why? If you haven't hiked the PCT, what have you heard about it? It sounds pretty extreme, going through desert and rain forest. Also, I heard the PCT isn't marked as well as the AT. Is that true?


Thanks all!

Ender
07-30-2009, 09:08
Two different types of difficulty. Kind of an apples to oranges sort of thing.

AT the terrain is harder. PCT the elevation is much higher, and you have less time to do more miles. But it's also much easier to put in big miles on the PCT because of the easier terrain.

Like I said, apples to oranges.

fiddlehead
07-30-2009, 09:11
AT is harder.
PCT is longer and resupplies are further apart.
But it never rains in southern CA (or much of northern CA either for that matter)

Dogwood
07-30-2009, 10:28
Questions like this have occasionally arise here on WB. I tend to avoid them because I just don't think in terms of superlatives all the time. I tend to think of different trails as just that, simply different. Each trail is beautiful, hard, easy, tough, challenging, etc in its own right. Thru-hiking any long distance trail in America is hard or easy, but imuch of that is determined by where you are at as a hiker and your mindset that determines these things. Oh, I'm sure you'll have plenty of folks making their case for which trail is harder based on all sorts of info like length, steepness, remoteness, etc, etc etc., BUT I think a better question to ask is how do the conditions differ on the two trails?

Jester2000
07-30-2009, 10:40
For some of my answers you will need to take into account the fact that I hiked the AT first.

I found the AT to be harder on my body. I was almost always injured in some way while I was on the AT. It was harder to do big mile days consistently. Overall I found the AT to be the more challenging to complete (again, this may be partially because it was my first long distance trail thru-hike attempt).

The PCT was very difficult in some places (as opposed to the AT, which was somewhat difficult most of the time), and there were more places on the PCT that I considered to be somewhat dangerous. Water was a constant pressure in the desert, time was a constant pressure in Washington. It took forever to finally cross a state line, which had been big celebratory points for me on the AT.

To sum up, I would say that the AT was more physically demanding, and the PCT may have been more mentally challenging for me (although I will say that the one good thing about already having completed a thru-hike was the knowledge that I could do it, and that was about the only thing knowledge-wise that transferred well between the two trails).

As for how they are marked, the PCT is less well marked and is marked in a variety of ways depending on where you are. There are PCT markers occasionally. There are other places where you don;t see those, but you see things like the metal signs in Yosemite, which mention destinations as opposed to trail names. If your question is really about whether or not it's easier to get lost on the PCT, I'd say yes, and not just because I got momentarily lost twice on my first day.

Jayboflavin04
07-30-2009, 11:39
You need to contact Garlic or Fiddlehead. Both have done many long treks! Garlic is a triple crowner, and fiddlehead has hiked all over the world. Wealth of Info from those two.

rocko23
07-30-2009, 12:55
Thanks everyone! This is some great info. I think you're right Dogwood. The proper question is how do conditions differ, opposed to which one is harder. I'm really wanting to get into hiking after hiking a local mountain twice in a day. Basically, I want to know what a good long distance trail would be for a beginner, but am realizing choosing will be a matter of personal preference instead of difficulty.

Sly
07-30-2009, 12:58
Both are tough in their own way for already listed reasons. If the question was which is better, I'd say the PCT. Of course, that's subjective and a matter of opinion too.

Sly
07-30-2009, 13:00
Thanks everyone! This is some great info. I think you're right Dogwood. The proper question is how do conditions differ, opposed to which one is harder. I'm really wanting to get into hiking after hiking a local mountain twice in a day. Basically, I want to know what a good long distance trail would be for a beginner, but am realizing choosing will be a matter of personal preference instead of difficulty.

Click on the PCT forum and read Mags' sticky dirty doc which helps explain the differences.

rocko23
07-30-2009, 13:13
Click on the PCT forum and read Mags' sticky dirty doc which helps explain the differences.

Thanks sly. Will do!

Blissful
07-30-2009, 13:33
A guy I talked to on the AT in '07 says the AT is way harder with elevation changes, etc. He's out this summer to complete the triple crown.

The Weasel
07-30-2009, 16:21
One factor about the PCT is that when it was laid out, trails were intended to be sufficiently graded that it could be horse-packed. This is because it's prime mover (forgot his name at the moment, but he just died a few years ago) in the 60s was an avid horseman. As a result, the trails tend to be a bit wider, and somewhat less extreme in the slopes, than the AT. This means that travel can be a bit faster.

I've done some of the So Cal stretches, and while they are largely in desert (until you get into the San Jacincto area), in the early part of the year they are bearable, and water caches usually help a lot. So those stretches tend to be flatter and fairly quick, too.

One thing is "tougher" and that is that the first 50 miles of the PCT are heavily used by illegal immigrants and drug smugglers, especially the first 25 miles or so. Some the the smugglers adn "coyotes" leading the illegals are armed; a Border Patrol officer was tragically killed recently near Campo, where the PCT starts. Since hikers can appear a lot like these people, that adds a challenge and a risk.

TW

Mags
07-30-2009, 18:16
The rough rule of thumb is that the AT is physically more demanding and the PCT is logistically more difficult.

I think part of the reason why the AT is perceived as more difficult is that for many people (myself included) the AT is their first multimonth hike. People on long trails are typically not in good trail shape (mentally or physically), have heavier gear, do not pace themselves correctly, etc. Hence, why the AT seems more difficult.

I recently did the Benton MacKaye Trail down near Springer. It is supposed to be a more difficult trail than the AT. (And, I think, it is..at least in terms of the AT in GA/NC/TN vs the BMT in GA/NC/TN)

In 1998 (when I did the AT) , though I was younger, I am not the shape I am in now.

I am also a much more experienced outdoors person and carry a much lighter load than eleven years ago. With the exception of the stretch between the Hiawassee and Deals Gap (edge of the Smokies), I found the trail relatively moderate overall in terms of grade. If I was new to backpacking, I suspect I'd find the trail every bit as challenging as I found the AT in 1998, however.

As an aside, I did some hiking in New Hampshire in Sept 2008 (http://www.pmags.com/joomla/index.php/component/option,com_mojo/Itemid,/p,3/). The tread and grades were every bit as hard as I remember! Northern New England still has the toughest trails (at least physically) of any I've ever hiked. The Whites, northern LT and the Mahoosucs are butt kickers!

JMO. My. 02. YMMV. etc. etc. etc.

Sly
07-30-2009, 21:23
A guy I talked to on the AT in '07 says the AT is way harder with elevation changes, etc. He's out this summer to complete the triple crown.

The steepness and number of climbs is more extreme on the AT compared to the western trails but from high point to low point on the AT is tame with a 6500' difference The PCT ranges from desert to alpine and over 13,000'. While few, if any, suffer from altitude sickness at 6600', the same can't be said on the PCT

Jim Adams
07-30-2009, 21:36
For me the AT was far harder due to the physical effort needed however the mental problems trying to deal with the speed needed on the PCT did me in. I got bored and depressed trying to "keep the pace" and then ran out of cash due to my slowness. The AT beauty is in the details. The PCT beauty just smacks you in the face with scale. OTOH, I've completed 2 AT thru hikes and can't wait for the next one. To me the AT was far more difficult but I failed to complete on the PCT.
Sometimes the oranges do kick the apples a$$.:)

geek

Jester2000
07-31-2009, 13:09
Basically, I want to know what a good long distance trail would be for a beginner, but am realizing choosing will be a matter of personal preference instead of difficulty.

It's been said that the AT is better for a beginner, even though it might be physically harder. With towns closer together any resupply errors you make are easier to correct; shelters with water sources make camping easier; there are more people out there who can offer help if you need it; there are more hiker-centered services in towns; and there is less time pressure.

An awful lot of the people on the PCT last year had hiked the AT first.

That said, if you're already a competent, experienced backpacker and camper, I think either trail would be a good first experience -- there were plenty of people on the PCT last year who had never hiked a long trail before, and they did just fine.


One thing is "tougher" and that is that the first 50 miles of the PCT are heavily used by illegal immigrants and drug smugglers, especially the first 25 miles or so. Some the the smugglers adn "coyotes" leading the illegals are armed; a Border Patrol officer was tragically killed recently near Campo, where the PCT starts. Since hikers can appear a lot like these people, that adds a challenge and a risk.

TW

I've had a few people ask me questions regarding this, and I think to some extent the fear of illegals or Border Patrol agents is a bit overblown.

I don't know of any instances where a smuggler, illegal or coyote has harmed a hiker (at least partially because these people are trying to not attract attention to themselves or their routes). A number of hikers saw illegals last year, including my hiking partner, and they just said "hello" and went on their way (one of the interesting changes recently is that illegals seem to be traveling more often during the day, as Border Patrol is using planes with heat-sensors at night).

Border Patrol Agents took little notice of us.

I'm not saying that there's no risk; I'm saying that the risk is minimal and that I'm not aware of any history of violence or theft on the part of those trying to complete a thru-hike to San Diego.