telemark skiingbackcountry skiingPacific NorthwestWashington and Oregonweather linksThe Yuki AwardsMt. Rainier and Mt. Adams
Turns All Year
www.turns-all-year.com
  Help | Search | Login | Register
Turns All Year Trip Reports
Backcountry Skiing and Snowboarding

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
08/18/18, 02:44 PM

Become a TAY Sponsor!
 
Trip Reports Sponsor
American Alpine Institute
American Alpine Institute
Turns All Year Trip Reports
(1) Viewing these pages constitutes your acceptance of the Terms of Use.
(2) Disclaimer: the accuracy of information here is unknown, use at your own risk.
(3) Trip Report monthly boards: only actual trip report starts a new thread.
(4) Keep it civil and constructive - that is the norm here.
 
FOAC Snow
Info Exchange


NWAC Avalanche
Forecast
+  Turns All Year Trip Reports
|-+  Hot Air
| |-+  Random Tracks: posts that don't fit elsewhere
| | |-+  Introducing Cascade Backcountry Alliance
:
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]  All | Go Down Print
Author Topic: Introducing Cascade Backcountry Alliance  (Read 10742 times)
Jim Oker
Moderator
Offline

Posts: 1552


Re: Introducing Cascade Backcountry Alliance
« Reply #75 on: 02/06/18, 10:55 AM »

Thanks for the thoughtful  reply "CBA" (sorta wondering what *human* I'm engaging  with... but that's  OK_.

Yes,  those "steps" are a decent start - I may have glazed over them on my first view of your web site because they appeared to be "execution details"  (listed as "steps") rather  than higher level  goals,  from  which "steps" might follow. And they do mush together "goals"  and "action plan" a bit, which I  have  found is not ideal. IMO a really good set of goals would  be relatively concise (particularly  for  a new organization that will  likely have  to  pick and choose carefully  where  to  try to have  impact!!), would be very useful  for ranking competing possible projects (would plowing the PCT  TH be better than expanding the existing  Sno-Park along the road that runs past Gold  Creek, for instance), and would have  some relatively  concise backup explanation  that  helps everyone understand *why* these are the  goals as well as that helps remove some of ambiguity that tends to  be inherent in  one-line goals. And the goals would very clearly telescope into  the  organization's "mission," and reflect its "values." I can look  for some other  examples but may not get  to  it for a week or so. In the meantime, you  could do worse than emulate the  template provided by this "strategic plan" from the WTA (easy to find on  their site,  but for  the type-and-browse averse: https://www.wta.org/our-work/about/our-work/strategic-plan-2015-2020 - also note its location  under "about us"  which is relatively standard). I like the way they give  their overall  vision and mission,  and lay out three clear and concise goals, and then have  a page for  each  goal on which they dive a bit deeper into what they call "objectives"  (I think of them as sub-goals) and some explanation of the thinking behind the  goals.  Very good public format for this sort of strategy plan document. And there's very little there about actual execution plan, but there's enough detail to  be able to infer a fair bit about likely  execution steps. And it looks to  me as if it will  be a very  good tool for prioritizing possible work  streams.

With respect to my traffic analogy,  those  "solutions"  to  too  many cars have almost never reduced the number of cars on any  given road/highway and that's my point. Neither  does building more roads or highways. What  I learned while studying urban planning is that the roads will stay full so  trying to reduce the congestion  there  is a fool's game.  Doesn't mean you  shouldn't do things like build mass transit infrastructure if you want to  allow *yet more* people to  transit through an urban region; but it does mean that reducing congestion on key  roads is rarely a project success  metric (with the exception of certain types of road revisions that resolve heinous and typically archaic designs of things like urban highway interchanges that are dangerous and for which much better designs exist that could fit into roughtly the same footprint; Boston's "Big Dig" was  a good example and relates to our on  viaduct which  is of the  same construction as the road that tunnel replaced - putting  the through-traffic on  a tunneled highway has kept within-city travelers off the road and  on  surface streets so now the  highway  flows much better  through the  city w/o so much on-off traffic). If you  think I'm  advocating  for a strategy that tries to limit numbers or restrict access, we are indeed talking past each other.  I'm simply suggesting that, whatever you  do, recreationalists are STILL going  to park at Lot 4 and over at West (unless and until the ski area implements some sort of restrictive policy which may or may not violate their lease  or tax arrangements). Trying to stop  that through extra lots  will at best offer very transient wins given the continuing and somewhat striking growth  of outdoor recreationalists hereabouts. So if plowing the PCT lot nets more overall  "new ski tourer days" possible on great terrain which  has  capacity for that  load than any of the other  similar-cost options around the Pass area, great. It's number one then. I'm  simply suggesting that proximity  to the  ski  areas shouldn't nudge that project any higher in the rankings (and in  fact, the fact that "access" already exists for that  terrain, one might argue for nudging it downward a bit). I  hope that  helps clarify what I  meant with  that  analogy. And I'd also hope that having opened a  new lot there wouldn't make it *easier*  for  the  ski  area to  start restricting parking access to non-lift-holders (this is coming from  someone who has a seasons pass up  there most seasons, fwiw). Perhaps I'm missing some value to "buidling goodwill with the ski area" but I'd be very wary of overly banking on that for any project that isn't both a "give" and "take"  there, and which wouldn't persist past a change of corporate intention  or ownership.
« Last Edit: 02/06/18, 11:01 AM by Jim Oker » Logged
CBAlliance
5Member
Offline

Posts: 29


WWW
Re: Introducing Cascade Backcountry Alliance
« Reply #76 on: 02/12/18, 07:18 PM »

We will be holding our first event on Wednesday, February 21st at Ascent Outdoors in Ballard. If you'd like to show up, make your voice heard, and drink some free beer, we'd love to have ya. Click on the photo to RSVP.


Logged

cascadebackcountryalliance.org
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]  All | Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  



Login with username, password and session length

Thank you to our sponsors!
click to visit our sponsor: Feathered Friends
Feathered Friends
click to visit our sponsor: Marmot Mountain Works
Marmot Mountain Works
click to visit our sponsor: Second Ascent
Second Ascent
click to visit our sponsor: American Alpine Institute
American Alpine Institute
click to visit our sponsor: Pro Guiding Service
Pro Guiding Service
Contact turns-all-year.com

Turns All Year Trip Reports ©2001-2010 Turns All Year LLC. All Rights Reserved

The opinions expressed in posts are those of the poster and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Trip Reports administrators or Turns All Year LLC


Turns All Year Trip Reports | Powered by SMF 1.0.6.
© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved.