Cog looking at running snow cats to the summit

[peakbagger]

Are the Cog Train and the Auto Road a zero sum game? Is the proposed Cog hotel a threat to the Glen House Hotel occupancy rate?

The two ownership groups certainly seem to behave that way at those Summit meetings. The animosity between the parties do seem to have cranked up over recent years, both entities have been expanding their businesses and ridership year over year and both are impacted by overcrowding at the summit facilities. The state owns the septic system and they currently can limit either party from expansion by just not allowing its use outside of the current limits. Mike Pelchat the former state park manager floated a trial balloon two years ago to open the summit building during the off season to deal with hikers leaving "lilies" all around the summit but it was shot down. When the state sanitary facilities are closed there is one functioning toilet at the OBS. By putting in the cog hotel near the summit, the Cog is freed from control by the state and they plan to have their own sewer line to a septic system located on their land. If the state elects to hook up to it I expect the Cog gets the upper hand. The Auto Road does not appear to have that option to build their own equivalent facility. As Ski guy points out, hikers are using the upper utility trench as a hiking trail already and expect if the Cog hotel gets built it will be used heavily by Cog guests to go up to the summit to get in line with the obligatory summit photo. The use of the utility trench downhill of the Westside trail for hiking in non winter conditions is expressively discouraged by the Cog. It does get use in winter for winter hikers when the cog is not running. Do note that its only recently that the current owners welcomed hikers. The new parking lot down the base station road was built because the cog didn't want hikers parking in their lot unless they collected a fee. Both the Jewell and Ammo trails were officially abandoned where they entered cog property and relocated outside of cog property although the cog kept them open for their guests use.

I don't see the two hotels significantly competing with each other, the autoroad hotel is a drive up and go into town for dinner type place with possibly some future tie in with the cross country ski area while the Cog is going to sell the Cog hotel as an adventure, basically a high end AMC experience. I expect the pricing will be significantly higher for the Cog experience.

[/I]Can I legally take the Cog Train or Auto Road to the summit in the summer and hike back down the Tuckerman Ravine trail? Yes because the FS allows you to. Trails can only exist in certain areas of the National forest, although rarely done the FS could ban access to any location in the forest by a supervisors order, whether or not that would stand long term is another story Or is that only allowed by the USFS's leave?[/I] YES Hard to understand how that is different than using either method in the winter to ski down Tucks? The FS has to right to control use of the forest and they deemed long ago that due to the potential risks they wanted skiers to climb up to tucks.

The concern that either company providing this winter service to the summit would enable less experienced skiers to attempt to ski Tucks is probably a valid concern (and an interesting parallel to cell phones, GPSs, SPOTs, and PLBs allowing hikers to get themselves in trouble) but I don't understand how it can be legally disallowed if a very similar activity is allowed in the summer.[/QUOTE] They were successful before in stopping the cog from offering the service, I expect they will be successful again.

 

[skiguy]

Interesting when the State wants a power line from the Summit to the base they employ the use of private land. Then the land owner actually covers up their mess up with a trail. Then people start calling it a road and grip about it. Where were these tree huggers when the State was digging their trench?

 

[ChrisB]

...

Can I legally take the Cog Train or Auto Road to the summit in the summer and hike back down the Tuckerman Ravine trail? Or is that only allowed by the USFS's leave? Hard to understand how that is different than using either method in the winter to ski down Tucks?

In Europe and the American West skiing big, steep bowls way above treeline is a given. And in lots of cases you climb above a lift terminus to get to the top. When you go through the gate and flip on your avi beacon you are more or less on your own.

So why is in the east do we make such a big deal about skiing Tucks or down from the summit of Mt Wash?

Are we wusses or what?

cb

Note: This winter Sugarloaf is offering cat-based skiing from the top of adjacent Burnt Mountain in basically backcountry / glade terrain. But Loafers are a special breed.

 

[TCD]

In Europe and the American West skiing big, steep bowls way above treeline is a given. And in lots of cases you climb above a lift terminus to get to the top. When you go through the gate and flip on your avi beacon you are more or less on your own.

So why is in the east do we make such a big deal about skiing Tucks or down from the summit of Mt Wash?

This might help answer your question:

https://lawschooltuitionbubble.wordpress.com/original-research-updated/lawyers-per-capita-by-state/

 

[peakbagger]

Interesting when the State wants a power line from the Summit to the base they employ the use of private land. Then the land owner actually covers up their mess up with a trail. Then people start calling it a road and grip about it. Where were these tree huggers when the State was digging their trench?

The state doesnt have to follow county regulations and has been known to take a few shortcuts on federal requirements. The state has delegated authority from the fed for enforcing environmental standards so its one department overseeing another. The cable installation was treated as an emergency after the generator plant burned to the ground on the summit. By keeping it on privately owned land it kept it out of federal control and permitting. The distance from the base station to the summit is much shorter than the auto road and I believe the cog strip of land is much wider so the cable could be installed while the cog was running. Coo County also had far less stringent regulations in place at the time and far less enforcement. The Balsams project has made the Coos county planning and zoning completely update their rules and enforcement is now actively being done.

Like it or not, this is posturing of the major parties for the eventual cog hotel hearing with Coos county. PR like this allows the opposition to raise funds and keep the project in the public's eye. I have little doubt that had there not been opposition to the hotel project last spring, that permits would be in place by now.

 

[CaptCaper]

Interesting when the State wants a power line from the Summit to the base they employ the use of private land. Then the land owner actually covers up their mess up with a trail. Then people start calling it a road and grip about it. Where were these tree huggers when the State was digging their trench?

I'm with you.. A snow cat up to the summit? who cares.. no one will see it anyway. Cog is an important business here in NH. They should be able to operate year round. It's their land. Their Mountain as well.

 

[egilbe]

It's not just their mountain.

 

[Raven]

Their Mountain as well.

I didn't know Cog ownership felt they owned Mount Washington.

 

[CaptCaper]

I didn't know Cog ownership felt they owned Mount Washington.

Sure is their mountain... if you can't catch that drift and meaning then your not on track so to speak.. ha.

 

[sierra]

Sure is their mountain... if you can't catch that drift and meaning then your not on track so to speak.. ha.

I'm pretty familiar with the mountain and still don't get your meaning here.

 

[TCD]

Maybe someone's trying to make a political point without appearing "political?"

I'm no expert on Mt. Washington, but I also can't understand what this is getting at...

 

[peakbagger]

Today's (12/12)Berlin Daily Sun https://www.dropbox.com/s/7ff3tpa1u2e3ec5/berlin.pdf?dl=0 has an interesting article regarding the owner of the Cog pushing back on the challenge against the Cog building a road on top of the utility trench. He has elected to go after the Mt Washington Observatories ongoing and expanding "commercialization" of the summit by a non profit. Edit, here is direct line to the article https://www.conwaydailysun.com/news...cle_8cc4be64-dea5-11e7-aa5c-fb52d82340f7.html

Its been a open joke for many years that the Obs is actively using off season summit access for significant fund raising. It started out as edutrips and then expanded to hosting commercial climbing groups and then further expanded to day trips via snow cats. More than a few former observers in private make comments about the "Mt Washington B&B" and push back from the staff along with high turnover led to bringing up additional summit volunteers to support the fund raising efforts by catering to the many guests. Realistically off season access to the summit appears to be a valuable commodity and several parties want to get a taste of it. I expect that if the AMC wasnt constrained by the limited federal use permit for Lake of the Clouds that they would have figured out a way of expanding use of LOC off season.

The autoroad has traditionally been ultraconservative on their business approach and even they actively run snowcat trips to treeline. The cog with its conversion to diesel locomotives have fundamentally changed the economics of the operation with a substantial increase in associated cash flow and profits. I expect both legitimately are unhappy where they have substantial investments to access the summit and are locked out of any potential of the summit for off season use.

I expect the public hearing tomorrow evening will be interesting. The board chair is most likely going to try to restrict the discussion to the matter at hand but expect both parties will try to expand the debate into a much wider discussion.

 

[Raven]

.
The concern that either company providing this winter service to the summit would enable less experienced skiers to attempt to ski Tucks is probably a valid concern (and an interesting parallel to cell phones, GPSs, SPOTs, and PLBs allowing hikers to get themselves in trouble) but I don't understand how it can be legally disallowed if a very similar activity is allowed in the summer.

Legalities aside, this is my concern. Mount Washington is not out west. It's a few hours drive from major population centers filled with potentially eager, inexperienced skiers. I can only imagine the winter rescues this could potentially add to the 200+ already done annually. You better be one hell of a skier to drop over that headwall. Most of us are not, myself included.

High angle, winter rescues are not easy from my understanding. Probably good the summit buildings just acquired two new rescue ropes. Be nice if they never needed them!

 

[ChrisB]

Its been a open joke for many years that the Obs is actively using off season summit access for significant fund raising.
The autoroad has traditionally been ultraconservative on their business approach and even they actively run snowcat trips to treeline.

Exactly.

So if you're Wayne Presby you think:

Hey, the Obs runs a hotel all winter on the summit. And the AMC runs a hotel the rest of the year at the Lakes. Why the hell can't I run a hotel too, and on my own land to boot?

And short of that, why can't I run a cat on my road just like the Auto Road does on its road?

Fair questions Wayne!

WRT the Obs: I am not sure what its mission is anymore. Most of the observers seem to be starry-eyed kids having the adventure of their young lives (read the Observer Comments section of the Web site).

No real, hard research is being done, and in this age of automation, I bet 90% of what the humans do on the summit could be quickly and easily automated with telemetry down-linked to NWS in Gray ME.

I predict the Obs as we know it will not exist in 5 years because the numbers just don't work.

cb

 

[TJsName]

Exactly.

So if you're Wayne Presby you think:

Hey, the Obs runs a hotel all winter on the summit. And the AMC runs a hotel the rest of the year at the Lakes. Why the hell can't I run a hotel too, and on my own land to boot?

And short of that, why can't I run a cat on my road just like the Auto Road does on its road?

Fair questions Wayne!

WRT the Obs: I am not sure what its mission is anymore. Most of the observers seem to be starry-eyed kids having the adventure of their young lives (read the Observer Comments section of the Web site).

No real, hard research is being done, and in this age of automation, I bet 90% of what the humans do on the summit could be quickly and easily automated with telemetry down-linked to NWS in Gray ME.

I predict the Obs as we know it will not exist in 5 years because the numbers just don't work.

cb

The rationale of 'someone else did something bad so it's ok if I do it too' is juvenile at best. The proposal should be evaluated on its own merits.

As for the MWOBS, I am curious which numbers don't add up?

I rely on their forecasts, so they provide a valuable service for me. So far as I can tell their B&B service hasn't added to their footprint (unlike adding a new hotel). I don't really have an issue if the cog wants to run snow cats, but the skier issue is interesting. Maybe the FS will start doing any blasting?

 

[Raven]

The MWO has a very successful fundraiser yearly that brings in a large amount of donations. Large. Seek the Peak.

With the history of severe weather on the mountain, the title of world's most dangerous small mountain, holder of the highest wind speed on Earth, etc and so on, my guess is the MWO is not going anywhere.

 

[TCD]

The rationale of 'someone else did something bad so it's ok if I do it too' is juvenile at best. The proposal should be evaluated on its own merits.

Problem is, that reasoning is circular - you start with the assumption that these various activities are "bad." What is good or bad legally is determined by the courts. And legal precedent is a legitimate legal concept.

 

[skiguy]

The MWO has a very successful fundraiser yearly that brings in a large amount of donations. Large. Seek the Peak.

With the history of severe weather on the mountain, the title of world's most dangerous small mountain, holder of the highest wind speed on Earth, etc and so on, my guess is the MWO is not going anywhere.

Having non-profit status helps just a bit too.

 

[peakbagger]

Results of Coos County Commissioners meeting

https://www.berlindailysun.com/news...s-cog-road-issue-to-planning-board-for-review

Looks like will got the planning board.

 

[peakbagger]

Planning board decided the work on the path to the summit at the COG didn't violate COOS country zoning

https://www.conwaydailysun.com/news...cle_dbef20a4-440a-11e8-9717-03ec12814028.html

Unless a whole lot of clarity came to the board up between the last meeting and this meeting, I expect there is probably opportunities to appeal. No matter the outcome of this ruling its putting the cog on the Coos county planning board "radar".

Combine this with the recent shot by Presby at the Summit Commission, I expect the Cog is going to be in the news.

An interesting aside is that during a recent marketing pitch tied in with the Cog opening this past week, there was a mention of a seasons pass for the cog. It was described as "popular with hikers". I really got to wonder why a hiker would want to buy a seasons pass to use the cog?