Cog claims you need to pay to cross the tracks

[peakbagger]

Note the so called biodiesel is 85% "dyno" diesel; with a small percentage, (15%) biodiesel added to it to make it look greener then it is. Nevertheless it is far cleaner then coal fired steam boilers but the switch was mostly for economics and I expect insurance purposes, the diesel electric generators on wheels disguised as engines for the tourists allow a far higher passenger capacity on the existing tracks. Its a win/win for all that the use of coal has gone way down but economics not altruism is the major driver of the switch.

Parking at the cog in winter was a non issue until recently since the state would not allow the road to be plowed for public use. The cog did plow the upper half and Mt Clinton road privately for several winters for their own use with the gate on Mt Clinton road used to restrict access. The FS put in the parking lot on WMNF property and rerouted the trails at the request of the Cog management for summer use at one point when the parking feed dollars were rolling in. Once the state allowed the entire base road to be plowed the FS was not plowing the lot in winter and stated publicly they were not going to and the Cog under the prior owners welcomed folks to park for free in winter. This changed last year and the FS started plowing the public lot down the road. Therefore there is a viable alternative to paying the fee for those willing to walk so folks can vote with their feet.

Note that the Cog was predated by the second Crawford Path which was built by Ethan Crawford a few years after Abe built the original. It ran roughly along the Mt Clinton Road then intersected with the Base station road and up the ridge that the Cog follows. Per Guy Waterman's Forest and Crag (Page 42 and 43) the second path was far more used by Ethan Crawford then the original route that his father used. The second Crawford Path ceased to exist when the Cog was put in.

 

[skiguy]

Originally Posted by CaptCaper
Sounds like a lot of jibber jabber..that hasn't gone anywhere or will go anywhere to me. And totally off the grid.

And exactly how does this contribute to the thread ?.

Maybe not Jibber Jabber but a personal interpretation and opinion. I find the post to be a combination of facts which are substantiated and a lot of unsubstantiated conjecture. To allude that skiers will inevitably be cutting illegally is hog wash and only a misinformed idea.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

So... it's still unclear to me. If I park in the FS lot and take the Ammo and/or Jewel, and not the versions that start / finish at the cog lot, are they expecting me to pay $10? For track crossing? Or summit sign access?

Tim

 

[peakbagger]

I cant see how they could charge if someone never enters their land which is the case when someone parks at the FS lot and takes the official trails. The West side trail and the summit access is a different story. It probably is tied into the conflicting rights claimed for the summit and track right of way.

 

[richard]

So... it's still unclear to me. If I park in the FS lot and take the Ammo and/or Jewel, and not the versions that start / finish at the cog lot, are they expecting me to pay $10? For track crossing? Or summit sign access?

Tim

Exactly my concern. I’ve always used the lower lot to access the Jewel or Ammo Trails.

 

[TCD]

My second thought is that their land use goals make no mention for preserving, maintaining, or caring for the environment/ecosystems...

Off topic again, like in the SAR thread. Not everyone has to always salute your flag, all the time. Sorry.

 

[TJsName]

Off topic again, like in the SAR thread. Not everyone has to always salute your flag, all the time. Sorry.

It's a comment on the policy linked in the first post, and on how the Cog manages a resource. And come on, it's definitely more on topic than a clip from Blazing Saddles.

Also, what is my flag in your eyes? Anyone who knows me well knows that it's a combination of reason and absurdity. If you're not saluting one of those, then I am sorry - I don't have much to offer you.

 

[peakbagger]

A new wrinkle on the potential impact of the decision to change the winter time use at the cog.

https://www.conwaydailysun.com/berl...cle_fa700064-f6ae-11e8-9a66-0fdf333a6c04.html

Site plan review can open up a lot of issues. And finally an answer to who plows the cog road (from a map it looks like the state plows about 3 miles and the cog plows 1.1 miles).

I will now switch to pure speculation on my part, if you are offended by my speculation feel free to skip or post relative speculations of your own.

Possible future salvos from the cog

Try to use their position as buyer of media to get a pro Cog news article about how they are trying to expand to supply services to a willing customer base but regulations are preventing them from doing so. Potential jobs will be mentioned despite their being a shortage of available folks to fill them.

Switch back to a parking fee at the Cog. It covers some of the cost of plowing that they are doing anyhow to support the ongoing winter operations of track repair at the cog. (Note the Cog has shifted their fab shop operations to the former steel fabrication plant in Berlin owned by the Cog owner's brother )

Threaten to gate the Base Station road at Four Corners so the upper road traffic is limited to Cog traffic. The public has rights to walk along this road so it just adds about 1.25 miles to the approach. Of course the state DOT is a wildcard. It is costly to plow and sand the lower road so they may elect to stop plowing it. That leaves the Cog high and dry for winter operations access unless they want to rebuild a couple of bridges on Mt Clinton road to go back to their former method of winter access. The net result will be loss of easy access to the west side of the mountain that existed in recent years.

 

[alexmtn]

So... it's still unclear to me. If I park in the FS lot and take the Ammo and/or Jewel, and not the versions that start / finish at the cog lot, are they expecting me to pay $10? For track crossing? Or summit sign access?
Tim

Wow, what an amazing amount of angst and speculation! Whomever of us is first to Marshfield Station when it's open simply needs to ask the necessary clarifying questions of the supervisor there. My assumptions are (1) that no, if you park in the FS lot and use those trailheads, you're fine and won't have exposure to the $10 permit requirement; and (2), of *course* they're not going to charge for on-mountain Cog crossings.

I don't plan to get at all worked up about this unless/until the clarifying questions have been posed and then answered in conflict with the above assumptions.

Alex

 

[jniehof]

If the Cog wanted to make it clear you can cross without paying, they could have stated that explicitly. If they wanted to make it clear that crossing was going to require a permit, they also could have stated that explicitly. What they've chosen to say is hiking on Cog property requires a permit, period, and the only mention of the trails is to say they're not special. So I agree, definitely some ambiguity here, but they're certainly not giving clear permission. My suspicion is it's an intentional hedge not to give up any right explicitly or implicitly.

I certainly don't object to paying for parking at the lot (particularly if they allow access to Jewell via the upper bridge as in the past), and I understand wanting to manage activities like hiking/skinning up and skiing down next to the tracks (getting very popular.)

Incidentally the Gulfside crossing is well out of the summit area/state park so I'd expect it to be essentially the same status as Westside.

 

[jniehof]

The title is probably too conclusion-oriented, though. If a mod is willing to change it to "Cog requires permit for 'all users' of property" that would be appreciated. I couldn't think of appropriate phrasing.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

This has a familiar odor. Reminds me of the Little River Road access. I am trying to get a definitive answer for the readers, but haven't yet had a chance to go ask myself

Tim

 

[richard]

As long as I’m not interfering with,or causing harm to someone else,I’m not paying to walk on Gods land so someone else can line their pockets just because they so call “OWN” the land. ********.

 

[DayTrip]

Wow, what an amazing amount of angst and speculation! Whomever of us is first to Marshfield Station when it's open simply needs to ask the necessary clarifying questions of the supervisor there. My assumptions are (1) that no, if you park in the FS lot and use those trailheads, you're fine and won't have exposure to the $10 permit requirement; and (2), of *course* they're not going to charge for on-mountain Cog crossings.

I don't plan to get at all worked up about this unless/until the clarifying questions have been posed and then answered in conflict with the above assumptions.

Alex

That was my thought as well. They obviously want to control access, limit liability, etc, etc in the base area they maintain as well as the open slopes along the tracks at lower elevation that many people ski in, butt slide, etc. They plow those lots, maintain bathrooms and facilities, dump trash, etc so they should have every right to charge for that access. Never had a problem with that, although I prefer to park down the road and avoid the fee.

On the rail crossings high up on the trails on Washington, I seriously doubt they are trying to impose a $10 charge for a 30 second crossing of the tracks. How would they even handle that? An iron ranger at each crossing with an envelope for your $10 on the honor system? An actual attendant? That I'm sure would be met with considerable outrage and would be widely ignored. As others have mentioned that would probably involve some sort of legal activity to sort out. But I doubt that is part of their intention. It really seems like the lower "park" where they conduct a variety of activities is really the focus of the fee.

 

[dug]

As long as I’m not interfering with,or causing harm to someone else,I’m not paying to walk on Gods land so someone else can line their pockets just because they so call “OWN” the land. ********.

I believe that's called trespassing in many areas.

 

[richard]

I’ll use another way to the destination. If there is none,I’ll go somewhere else. I consider myself to be pretty conservative, but not when it comes to Greed. ( capitalism ).

 

[peakbagger]

The owner at some point was interviewed and he said the hotel was being delayed. He was hoping that it would be built for an upcoming anniversary but decided there are other priorities.

 

[skiguy]

That was my thought as well. They obviously want to control access, limit liability, etc, etc in the base area they maintain as well as the open slopes along the tracks at lower elevation that many people ski in, butt slide, etc. They plow those lots, maintain bathrooms and facilities, dump trash, etc so they should have every right to charge for that access. Never had a problem with that, although I prefer to park down the road and avoid the fee.

On the rail crossings high up on the trails on Washington, I seriously doubt they are trying to impose a $10 charge for a 30 second crossing of the tracks. How would they even handle that? An iron ranger at each crossing with an envelope for your $10 on the honor system? An actual attendant? That I'm sure would be met with considerable outrage and would be widely ignored. As others have mentioned that would probably involve some sort of legal activity to sort out. But I doubt that is part of their intention. It really seems like the lower "park" where they conduct a variety of activities is really the focus of the fee.

This is an excellent summary of the situation without implying any half baked theoretical scenarios. The use of this corridor for outdoor recreation has been used in Winter by many for a long time. The corridor is privately owned land and the owner IMO is well within his rights to do what he wants with it including charging for services provided. The Summit is obviously not so well defined at this point and I agree that it should be. I see the two areas as separate issues. As far as crossing over the tracks and being charged that is never going to happen. Again what is the big issue of providing services like plowing, an open building with heat, food and drink and access to private land a big deal when someone wants to charge a few bucks. Not to mention it is highly unlikely your windshield is going to get smashed and your belongings stolen. Which is more that can be said about other winter trailheads. Not everyone is a hard core Winter Mountaineer. Providing an alternative winter experience is a positive thing for the local economy and gets people outdoors. The White Mountains is a Land of Many uses. The folks at "Keep The Whites Wild" have their agenda. Much as the Cog Railway does. Personally I find their underlying premises farcical. This latest move of claiming a "change of use" is only just another example. The founder of the group is a former Forest Service employee and certainly exemplifies the groups conservation efforts. Although the rest of the group is comprised of former AMC employees and mountain guides. Where in lies the farce IMO. These folks have made a profit in the past, present and most likely going forward on use of the White Mountain National Forest. Including accessing the Presidential Range via the Cog Railway. Now when someone else wants to make a buck for services provided on private land it's not OK. Simply a dichotomous line of rational. It is unfortunate that the parties involved including the Cog Railway cannot find a way to cooperate rather than using passive aggressive strategies. They would all stand to gain in the long run. Let's all play nice out there.

 

[Rainman]

Posted on New England Trail Conditions today:
https://www.newenglandtrailconditions.com/nh/viewreport.php?entryid=39097

"$10 PER PERSON fee to park"

"Passes provided and required to be with you on your hike"

posted by Tara, for a hike on 30-Dec-18

 

[rocket21]

Posted on New England Trail Conditions today:
https://www.newenglandtrailconditions.com/nh/viewreport.php?entryid=39097

"$10 PER PERSON fee to park"

"Passes provided and required to be with you on your hike"

posted by Tara, for a hike on 30-Dec-18

Sounds like they've taken the Wildcat/USFS uphill policy.