Harvard/Columbia Traverse vs Standard Routes

[terribletigzy]

The Harvard/Columbia traverse is ~15mi and 6,100' of gain from the N. Cottonwood Creek trailhead. Alternatively, combining the standard routes on Harvard and Columbia from the same trailhead seems to be ~17mi and just over 7,000' of gain (I mapped it in Caltopo). For all of the negative things I have heard about how long and tedious the traverse is, I don't seem to see this other option discussed much. It looks like the standard routes on both peaks have pretty good trails most of the way up. Am I crazy to think that even with the extra elevation and mileage, combining the standard routes might actually be easier/faster than the traverse? Or at the very least similar in difficulty/time?

[Marmot72]

It’s been two decades since I did that traverse but I don’t understand all the concern people have- the technical section can be completely avoided with some class two on the backside of Columbia.

[The_Ramp]

I speculated on a similar thought when I did the traverse back in 2020. I think the time difference between the traverse and doing both individually, especially for a strong hiker, could be negligible.

FWIW - if you do consider the traverse, I would recommend going Columbia -> Harvard versus the standard Harvard -> Columbia route. See my TR from 2020 climb below. I found a TR from 2010 that was helpful with navigation in that direction as well, also linked below.

My Columbia/Harvard TR: https://www.14ers.com/php14ers/triprepo ... trip=20550
2010 TR by tommyboy360: https://www.14ers.com/php14ers/tripreport.php?trip=9016

Good luck!

[Ptglhs]

The traverse is long, but so is doing an additional 2 miles and 1k vertical. There's nothing difficult or weird about the traverse. I thought the hardest part, apart from the "are we there yet?" of if all, was the descent from the trail to the talus at the low point. There's a short steep loose section. That can be avoided by hking even lower.

I'd rather see something differenr, aka the traverse which looks north and east, than hike down into the same basin twice. The only reasons I can think of doing it the way suggested is to either do additional training at elevation, or if one was worried the weather would deteriorate, there being no bail out options on the traverse which lead back to one's car.

[tortilla]

Am I crazy to think that even with the extra elevation and mileage, combining the standard routes might actually be easier/faster than the traverse? Or at the very least similar in difficulty/time?

I haven’t hiked the low traverse, but I have scrambled the ridge between and hiked Harvard/Columbia a la carte via their standard routes in one day. Both via their standard routes was a super slog, I’d imagine the low traverse is certainly easier and faster.

[Ryan987]

I did the traverse last June and was all prepared for the negatives after my research - turns out I had a blast and really enjoyed the traverse! Start early so you beat the heat and follow the gpx tracks closely once you get through the low point. I did it with a bit of snow which helps with getting through the slog boulder hopping parts. Took me approx 2.5 hours peak to peak

[justiner]

Maybe best to not think the route that links the two mountains as a traverse at all.

I also had to double-check your numbers, you're correct in how close the two routes are mileage/elevation, surprised me.

[Strider29]

I decided not to do the traverse last year due to being solo. But I agree there's not much to be gained by doing both together rather than one at a time. Either way it's a long day. Best way to do these IMO is to backpack in to the Columbia junction, stash your pack, summit Harvard and return to set up camp. Climb Columbia the next morning, then pack up and hike out.