Cog Rolls out big development plans near the summit.

[Mike P.]

Eighteen cars sound like more than what was in the picture. I love the BG comments, lots of accommodations up there already. There's one, not counting Madison and the RMC facilities on Adams and the one has too many bunks hence Lake of the Crowds nickname. (I won't stay there again; I'd stay at any other.)

Washington being used by Globe readers as wilderness, ROFL. Does each train hold 100's of people? I'd argue that number but agree, it's a zoo up there.

I'd hope they would try and have accommodations that would not be too intrusive, limited lighting, none on the trails, guests would be required to use headlamps, their own, one they buy from the Cog or maybe they have a supply their guests can borrow.

Not sure I'd go to the top for a sunset picture, not unless I could get the summit sign and sun without the buildings, not sure you could. One of the train cars in a multi-colored sky behind it might actually be better. Better yet, just steeping west of them and taking a picture without any buildings.

 

[skiguy]

It’s Mount Washington…the second greatest show on Earth. Hikers, climbers and skiers are just a partial percent of users. Tourists have been the mainstream of visitors to the Mountain for decades. In which Hikers are included as Tourists. Overnight guests were even more prevalent around the turn of the century not to mention their reach was far greater other than just the summit of Washington. We all contribute to pollution on many levels just driving to the trailhead let alone tramping on the mountain itself. No one says you have to go there as many other treasures exist. The Cog of all the entities has opened up access to many different demographics in recent years. How many hikers, climbers and skiers would start whining if access to The Cog’s ROW were to be shutdown to folks just riding the train. Compromises are being conceded by The Cog in this latest proposal not to mention infrastructure that could benefit all. IMO it’s time for the tree huggers to take the foot out of their mouths and start cooperating rather than adhering to the double standards they preach. Concerning light pollution I really find it a bummer that when I go up to Crag Camp for the night all the folks on the Rt. 2 corridor don’t turn off their lights after sunset. At least you don’t have to wake up to looking at smoke stacks anymore.

 

[cragway]

It’s Mount Washington…the second greatest show on Earth. Hikers, climbers and skiers are just a partial percent of users. Tourists have been the mainstream of visitors to the Mountain for decades. In which Hikers are included as Tourists. Overnight guests were even more prevalent around the turn of the century not to mention their reach was far greater other than just the summit of Washington. We all contribute to pollution on many levels just driving to the trailhead let alone tramping on the mountain itself. No one says you have to go there as many other treasures exist. The Cog of all the entities has opened up access to many different demographics in recent years. How many hikers, climbers and skiers would start whining if access to The Cog’s ROW were to be shutdown to folks just riding the train. Compromises are being conceded by The Cog in this latest proposal not to mention infrastructure that could benefit all. IMO it’s time for the tree huggers to take the foot out of their mouths and start cooperating rather than adhering to the double standards they preach. Concerning light pollution I really find it a bummer that when I go up to Crag Camp for the night all the folks on the Rt. 2 corridor don’t turn off their lights after sunset. At least you don’t have to wake up to looking at smoke stacks anymore.

Fossil fuel power plants charge EV's ,there's something odd about that,can't quite put my finger on it.
Earth had a long stretch before we humans appeared and apparently did fine.We did provide it plastic though,so there's that

 

[ChrisB]

...The Cog in this latest proposal not to mention infrastructure that could benefit all. IMO it’s time for the tree huggers to take the foot out of their mouths and start cooperating rather than adhering to the double standards they preach...

Interesting point Skiguy.

I wonder how folks on this board would respond if the FS wanted to build 20 tent platforms and a portable privy in the same spot? Then we hikers could enjoy an overnight at "High Camp."

Check out This little camping spot. Designed to be zero impact and fully removable "without a trace." Don't ask the price of entry...

 

[skiguy]

Interesting point Skiguy.

I wonder how folks on this board would respond if the FS wanted to build 20 tent platforms and a portable privy in the same spot? Then we hikers could enjoy an overnight at "High Camp."

Check out This little camping spot. Designed to be zero impact and fully removable "without a trace." Don't ask the price of entry...

View attachment 6808

Most relevant. The Cog’s proposal other than the landing dock is actually seasonal and will be removed during Winter Months. Rather progressive idea IMO. Just imagine if it were like the now defunct Edmunds Col or The Dungeon if it were left there. IMO this is a focused approach. It was only just a few years ago the AMC was proposing a permanent facility within a NH State Park which would have been focused on a narrow demographic. Not to mention built on Public Lands. The Cog’s proposal is on private land. Again the arguments of light and noise pollution have some validity but pale in comparison to supply flights and septic removal by helicopters by the AMC. Not to mention they were given a variance to land and take off their “Pooper Choppers” on public lands in addition to flying over many other public lands to do so. I’ll take a well engineered pipe to get the deal done. Let’s not forget the time the AMC dropped the whole crap house in Kinsman Pond while flying out seasonal deposits. Or when their poop cans were overflowing at Madison for all to enjoy an air of septic odiferous flavor.

 

[Mike P.]

Interesting point Skiguy.

I wonder how folks on this board would respond if the FS wanted to build 20 tent platforms and a portable privy in the same spot? Then we hikers could enjoy an overnight at "High Camp."

Check out This little camping spot. Designed to be zero impact and fully removable "without a trace." Don't ask the price of entry...

View attachment 6808

I'm thinking 18 rail cars will hold more people than 20 tent platforms and where it is located, I'm not sure a privy would stand in the weather at that spot. Your point is well taken though. Will they be removing everything in the fall? Thinking the anchor spots will remain and I would think the loading platforms would also remain but they could be rebuilt annually.

 

[Andrew]

It’s Mount Washington…the second greatest show on Earth. .... IMO it’s time for the tree huggers to take the foot out of their mouths and start cooperating rather than adhering to the double standards they preach....

From the perspective of an actual treehugger, I like this proposal much better than the side slope hotel proposal. I look at Mt. Washington's western slope most every day, and the former proposal bothered me in figuring we would see a glow from lighting or just seeing the new development stuck on the side of the mountain. Knowing the summit area has already been impacted by heavy development for over a century, I have already come to terms and accept the existence of that development, and find it easier to tolerate more in that concentrated area. I appreciate that despite all the development on the summit, there are still special places and wild experiences in the summit area that will suffer, but in pulling back and realizing that Mt. Washington is a mountain where near universal accessibility to a unique mountain environment for a broader human audience including non-hikers, is relevant. I know deep commitment to universal accessibility is not necessarily the goal of any of the players at the summit, and it's all just business as the dominant driving force.

In talking with the old long-time state park employees from Mt. Washington in the recent past, we all thought that the mid-slope proposal was just a rouse to upset people so much that they would be more accepting of his true intent to expand on the summit. We just figured it would be the Sherman Adams building that would get leased to the Cog and turned into a hotel, so the state would benefit from not be responsible for their building.

 

[Cograilway]

The Mount Washington Commission minutes of the meeting won't be available on their website until they are approved at the next meeting. I don't expect this new facility will lead to a big increase in summit usage. It is meant to reduce the congestion caused by multiple trains loading and unloading passenger directly in front of the Sherman Adams Building. A single train will act as a free shuttle between the actual summit and Lizzie's Station. This shuttle will be powered by our next generation of locomotive which will be electric.

 

[Cograilway]

A normal railroad car is about 85 feet long. These cars are only 40 feet. The boarding platforms will need to be permanent to withstand the weather, but they will be perforated allowing both light, air and water to go through them onto the ground. We intend to build them resting on relatively small piers to minimize ground disturbance. The area planned for the station is within 200 feet of the fuel tanks, the auto road, the helipad, the old concrete pad that is left from the barracks used by the folks who operated the jet testing laboratory and the old leach field area.

 

[skiguy]

Most relevant. The Cog’s proposal other than the landing dock is actually seasonal and will be removed during Winter Months. Rather progressive idea IMO. Just imagine if it were like the now defunct Edmunds Col or The Dungeon if it were left there. IMO this is a focused approach. It was only just a few years ago the AMC was proposing a permanent facility within a NH State Park which would have been focused on a narrow demographic. Not to mention built on Public Lands. The Cog’s proposal is on private land. Again the arguments of light and noise pollution have some validity but pale in comparison to supply flights and septic removal by helicopters by the AMC. Not to mention they were given a variance to land and take off their “Pooper Choppers” on public lands in addition to flying over many other public lands to do so. I’ll take a well engineered pipe to get the deal done. Let’s not forget the time the AMC dropped the whole crap house in Kinsman Pond while flying out seasonal deposits. Or when their poop cans were overflowing at Madison for all to enjoy an air of septic odiferous flavor.

A normal railroad car is about 85 feet long. These cars are only 40 feet. The boarding platforms will need to be permanent to withstand the weather, but they will be perforated allowing both light, air and water to go through them onto the ground. We intend to build them resting on relatively small piers to minimize ground disturbance. The area planned for the station is within 200 feet of the fuel tanks, the auto road, the helipad, the old concrete pad that is left from the barracks used by the folks who operated the jet testing laboratory and the old leach field area.

Thank you for the info.

 

[Cograilway]

There have been several master plans developed for the summit and a large survey done of people visiting the summit. All of these are available on the Mt. Washington Commission Master Planning Website. I have used these plans and surveys as the bible for all the improvements I have been making to the railroad. Although some of these documents are old they still seem to be quite relevant today. One of the big things we helped to accomplish at the summit was to enable them to get commercial grid power and not run generators all the time. It would be nice to see the fuel tanks eventually get removed. We are also very committed to cleaning up any debris which has been discarded next to the tracks much of which I inherited when I bought the railroad in 1983.

 

[Cograilway]

Also the next time you are on the summit look closely at the way our track is constructed. It rests on wooden blocking every 12 feet and is elevated. As a result endangered plant species grow underneath the track in most places. If it was laid on the ground this would not be possible.

 

[NHClimber]

Thank you for the info Cograilway. It's good to hear from those with knowledge that the MSM doesn't provide. I think of all the structures and railways in the mountains of Europe. Granted the Whites are a smaller footprint. But Mt. Washington is, like it or not, a tourist destination and we just have to compromise on that IMO and be responsible with the stewardship while recognizing that the mountain has a long tradition of development. Plenty of other hills to hike if one wants to avoid the tourists. We can start worrying if Cog wants to lay a surface double track to haul aggregate off the summit using 100 ton open top hopper cars. I'm confident that won't happen.

 

[skiguy]

From the perspective of an actual treehugger, I like this proposal much better than the side slope hotel proposal. I look at Mt. Washington's western slope most every day, and the former proposal bothered me in figuring we would see a glow from lighting or just seeing the new development stuck on the side of the mountain. Knowing the summit area has already been impacted by heavy development for over a century, I have already come to terms and accept the existence of that development, and find it easier to tolerate more in that concentrated area. I appreciate that despite all the development on the summit, there are still special places and wild experiences in the summit area that will suffer, but in pulling back and realizing that Mt. Washington is a mountain where near universal accessibility to a unique mountain environment for a broader human audience including non-hikers, is relevant. I know deep commitment to universal accessibility is not necessarily the goal of any of the players at the summit, and it's all just business as the dominant driving force.

In talking with the old long-time state park employees from Mt. Washington in the recent past, we all thought that the mid-slope proposal was just a rouse to upset people so much that they would be more accepting of his true intent to expand on the summit. We just figured it would be the Sherman Adams building that would get leased to the Cog and turned into a hotel, so the state would benefit from not be responsible for their building.

Unfortunately you parsed my words from my original post to accommodate your point here.

 

[Andrew]

Unfortunately you parsed my words from my original post to accommodate your point here.

Sorry skiguy, I only intended to remove the other content in your post to concentrate on 2 of your points that I agreed with and wished to reinforce from my perspective.
- Mt. Washington is and has been a major tourist destination for years and that probably will never change. With that it has developed into a location that can provide a unique opportunity to introduce a special mountain environment to a broader and more universal audience.
- I chuckled when I saw your treehugger reference; as I was out wandering around the woods in the snowstorm on Saturday and was attracted to some opening in brush thickets since the snow was sticking everywhere and created little micro zones. I popped out of one thicket and this handsome 2 trunk large grey birch was right in front of me, and I had no choice but to hug it. Happens quite often to me and can also include knocking on the truck to get a feel for the wood and the strength of the tree. So I thought it would be good to give a perspective from a person who actually hugs trees, that some of us can agree to compromise towards common goals and balance since we live in reality. I love the Cog and think it is a historical mechanical wonder that the citizens of NH should support.

It's really nice to see these posts from the Cog and hear how much attention they are giving to being a responsible steward. And I totally agree that what they are planning has a lot to do with dealing with the existing problems of crowding at the summit. And hopefully they can get some new opportunities and revenue along with that effort. I know I have a bad attitude about $ always being the driving force, often at the expense of sustainable stewardship. After almost 30 years with NH State Parks, where wording in the enabling legislation to establish the park system stated (paraphrase) that public accessibility, stewardship and preservation were foremost; and not to be at the expense of other factors. So whenever we had a meeting, a leader in our system would have the audience call out the established priorities such as "Safety, Fiduciary, Compliance, etc." It was not originally on the list, but I would always annoyingly shout "Stewardship". Then the leader eventually added stewardship to this list, but I always would shout it out first, but was told it was not to be first as you know what we were expected to shout out first.

add: Despite this said leader was actually the most mindful leader towards attention to stewardship of any others I worked for. Politics and difficult budget decisions often created difficulties towards focus.

I should get over it. And I should probably avoid these discussions as it gets my mind going too much on things that really don't matter as much to me anymore, and spend too much time not outside.

 

[peakbagger]

Right now its a broad concept with assertions from the Cog and other supporters on a project that really is not yet detailed out in the public domain. Once a real permitting package gets developed with the details, it would be a good time to debate the pros and cons. One thing to keep in mind is just because a use existed in the past like public lodging and dining at the summit, that use is not "grandfathered" forever. Thus past uses does not imply that permission will be granted to start those services again. The planning board prior to the Balsams proposed project was really a far more casual affair but given the potential for a near billion dollar project in an unincorporated place in the county they upped their game and their regulations and that upgraded approach is what the proposed project must comply with. The cog hotel never went through the permitting process beyond a preapplication public meeting and the expansion at the summit was never voted on as the Cog did not have the right to apply for a permit as the state owned the land underneath it and would have had to agree to the application. The board has voted after the fact approval to the construction of shelters below treeline within PD6 overlay district last year or maybe the year before.

The problem on commenting on a case before the planning board is the process rarely makes the documents publicly available in way that is accessible to those who are not within driving distance of the office in West Stewartstown NH. (bonus points to those who even know where the office is in West Stewartstown or even where West Stewartstown is) Usually the notice of an application is noticed in the paper and on line but the actual application and accompanying documents are not made available online until after the meeting (or ever). Yes, technically the information is available to the public by going to the office in West Stewartstown, but a well planned application will go in just before the deadline required to meet the legal notice limiting the ability to review in person to a small window of time. Thus the first and arguably the most important meeting of the planning board is usually predominantly attended by supporters of the project as those that may oppose may not have been able to review any details until the actual meeting. During the last discussion of the major expansion plans in the summit circle I was one of two members of the general public at the meeting and the only access to actually look at the package was after the meeting or when it was were flashed up on a screen during a presentation. This makes it very difficult with limited review time to develop and make rational questions on the application.

The next Coos County Planning board meeting is on the calendar for April 20th. I think the application needs to go in 15 days before the meeting. If the Cog intends to apply, the real details should emerge in 3 to 4 weeks.

 

[peakbagger]

BTW - Not everyone is a fan https://www.change.org/p/mount-wash...m-building-a-luxury-hotel-on-mount-washington

12,900 signers as of Saturday PM

 

[NHClimber]

BTW - Not everyone is a fan https://www.change.org/p/mount-wash...m-building-a-luxury-hotel-on-mount-washington

12,900 signers as of Saturday PM

I am sure it will be a mess and saga regardless, as there are so many groups with different agendas these days.

 

[peakbagger]

Wow, Even Jamie Sayen is getting involved https://indepthnh.org/2022/03/23/op-ed-cog-railway-development-proposed-atop-mt-washington/

Jamie made has an interesting rep in the north country when young but really got his name with Restore the North Woods who advocated a very radical to many that large areas of the Northern New England woods should be placed in wilderness preserves where people would not be allowed. Roxanne Quimby was influenced by Restore and most likely was the driver for her initial land purchases in Maine. The Maine National Park Brochure was a Restore project. Jamie has since moved back to the area as a teacher and also author of book about the Groveton Paper Mill

 

[NHClimber]

Started to read the Sayen piece but after a few paragraphs the radical agenda becomes apparent so stopped reading. Personally I find it hard to give credibility to position pieces that are laden with hyperbole and emotionally charged language. But everyone is entitled to their opinion of course. I'd rather read a calmer, more pragmatic discourse.