State to study Mt Washington Summit Capacity

[TomK]

Not sure what they can do about it.

I believe that the traditional method of discouraging an activity without actually making it illegal is to tax it. Seems like they ought to be able to craft some sort of tax that happens to only apply to the Cog and Auto Road customers, if they are so inclined. Maybe with the proceeds to F&G for SAR costs...

TomK

 

[Raven]

"And the trees are all kept equal by hatchet, axe, and saw." Peart

 

[peakbagger]

I believe that the traditional method of discouraging an activity without actually making it illegal is to tax it. Seems like they ought to be able to craft some sort of tax that happens to only apply to the Cog and Auto Road customers, if they are so inclined. Maybe with the proceeds to F&G for SAR costs...

TomK

The prior method was the autotroad and the cog made a contribution to the observatory which used it to pay their share of the summit expenses which are paid for by a substantial surcharge on the electric rate charged for power used at the summit. The Cog owner stopped making this contribution recently and is arguing that he is subsiding his competition for potential overnight visits to the summit. The problem is the biggest user of power on the summit is the radio and TV transmitter which are probably the least impact to the summit (beyond visual and a good dose of RF to the visitors). I would expect the next biggest user is the obs followed by the state park building with the Cog and the Autoroad using the least.

Why the state doesn't just charge a fee per head delivered to the summit via the Auto Road or the Cog directly is beyond me. Put in pay toilets and give a free token to the paying customers from the cog and the autoroad. Hikers will need to pay up. It would be easy to include a capital recovery charge in the fee to support capital upgrades to expand the summit facilities. Unfortunately the Obs gets nailed as they lose a source of cash.

My and other folks contention is that the Cog and Auto Road are the biggest impact to the summit by far with hikers well down on the list. Mike Pelchat the former State Park manager was actually encouraging opening the state park building early prior to the Cog and Auto Road opening to hikers to "prime" the septic system. The septic system is biological and has a difficult time handling a sudden influx of waste when the Cog or the Auto road surge starts. Getting hiker traffic in early lets the biology ramp up. One of the cornerstones of the Cog hotel plan was to allow the state to run a sewer line down the Cog land to handle the waste water from the summit to a large septic system located on Cog property at the base. The cog would have the rights to hook the new hotel to that line and septic system built with state funds and since it was state owned system, the permitting and construction is lot easier as the state gets to ignore many of the rules they enforce on others (for an example see the mess they have made at Cannon). The cog already allowed the electric cable to be run over their land in the past with I expect rights to access it, add in a sanitary system and that really cuts down on infrastructure costs for a Cog hotel. Only thing the need is water line and I expect they can design for low water and drill seasonal wells.

 

[jniehof]

Only with your car, as I understand it. What if I am on a bike or on foot? Anyone know if the plates come with a piece of paper to avoid the fee in those cases?

The FAQ says to bring your registration if the fee collection point isn't in the parking lot. It also says the plate provides access for "the registered vehicle and its passengers," i.e. you can't show up in somebody else's car. So those two point in different directions.

 

[peakbagger]

Attorney General Opinion on rights of various parties on the summit of Mt Washington

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20180921/NEWS02/180929940

I expect the observatory is happy that the "Mt Washington B&B" isn't in peril of being closed down due to the cog . Presby's comments with respect to the cog hotel are interesting. He did threaten at one point that he could build one right in front of the summit building view although I expect the Coos county planning and zoning restrictions as currently in place would prevent that. Maybe we will be seeing sleeper cars on the cog ?

Doesn't sound like the Cogs threat to put up concrete barricades to prevent autoroad patrons from crossing the cog track to access the state park building is going to be happening soon.

 

[SpencerVT]

I climbed Mount St. Helens in August and we had to get a permit to climb on the day we wanted to go. They have a quota of (I believe) 100 people per day they allow to the summit of Mount St. Helens. There are a bunch of Pacific Northwest mountains that have implemented a permit system, in part, to minimize crowds. I wonder if someday this type of policy will make its way to the busiest Northeast peaks such as Katahdin and Washington....

 

[HockeyPuck]

I climbed Mount St. Helens in August and we had to get a permit to climb on the day we wanted to go. They have a quota of (I believe) 100 people per day they allow to the summit of Mount St. Helens. There are a bunch of Pacific Northwest mountains that have implemented a permit system, in part, to minimize crowds. I wonder if someday this type of policy will make its way to the busiest Northeast peaks such as Katahdin and Washington....

Include a quota to limit the number of hikers on the mountains with highly overflowing parking lots.

 

[dug]

It will always be more difficult to implement any type of quota in the Whites vs. Baxter due to the entrance points. You have gated access for Baxter so you can control who comes and goes easier.

Whites have state and interstate roads, towns, etc. all mixed around there so much harder to control, I think.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I climbed Mount St. Helens in August and we had to get a permit to climb on the day we wanted to go. They have a quota of (I believe) 100 people per day they allow to the summit of Mount St. Helens. There are a bunch of Pacific Northwest mountains that have implemented a permit system, in part, to minimize crowds. I wonder if someday this type of policy will make its way to the busiest Northeast peaks such as Katahdin and Washington....

Include a quota to limit the number of hikers on the mountains with highly overflowing parking lots.

This got a brief mention in the recently cited NHPR The Exchange broadcast. Mike Dickerman explains why this is difficult.

Tim

 

[peakbagger]

I climbed Mount St. Helens in August and we had to get a permit to climb on the day we wanted to go. They have a quota of (I believe) 100 people per day they allow to the summit of Mount St. Helens. There are a bunch of Pacific Northwest mountains that have implemented a permit system, in part, to minimize crowds. I wonder if someday this type of policy will make its way to the busiest Northeast peaks such as Katahdin and Washington....

There actually was a quota permit system in place for the Great Gulf sometimes in the late seventies. When I moved up to the area in 1987 there was still a bit of remnants of signage regarding it. Some locals mentioned that the system didn't work well. There were apparently games that could be played to get permits and those out of the area were at a disadvantage.

Katahdin effectively has a permit system by nature of the Day Use Parking Passes and the maximum group size of 12. Its not a hard limit but by limiting the number of parking spaces at the three trail heads it effectively put some limits in place. Of course 100 vans full of 12 folks could descend on the mountain with DUPRs but normally its a mix of 2 to 4 folks in normal vehicles with few vans fit in. Sure there also are a few folks coming in from the north of the park via Northern Peaks and NW basin trail but they are a drop in the bucket compared to the day hikers from the three major trailheads. If BSP wanted to put in hard limits they could but it would require extra enforcement. The remoteness of BSP effectively creates a limit as most folks don't go up there on whim.

The NHPR broadcast did touch on busy trailheads and overuse but it was with a light touch. The overall show is probably going to encourage more folks to do the lists and expect the new book will also encourage an older crowd to take a run at it.

 

[Mike P.]

The best thing to do is hike the popular peaks mid-week. (Washington and Franconia Ridge) Even the remote peaks with views are getting crowded as I saw this June on Bondcliff and Bond. The Summit State Park is more than willing to sell us a This Body has climbed bumper sticker or shirt plus food. (I've had & like the beef barley soup)

I don't know what the answer is however, with the AT right there, you are next to a National Scenic Trail although both the Cog and Road predate both the State Park and AT.

 

[TCD]

After three pages of this thread, I went back and re-read the original article.

My firm belief is that the "study" is a solution in search of a problem. Nowhere in the original article is any actual negative outcome of the current visitation level cited. In fact, the article specifically says "visitors don't seem to mind the crowds."

So what in the world are the "studiers" trying to fix? It sounds like the summit of Washington is a great place, and lots of people enjoy it, and are enjoying visiting it. It's good for them, and it's good for business, and folks are happy. And there appears to be minimal "damage" of any kind as a result. Can't people just be allowed to enjoy something, without someone coming along trying to chase them away?

 

[peakbagger]

I agree the original article was lacking on details on overcrowding at the summit. The current issues I am aware of is just that the state facilities were not designed for the volume of people using the summit especially during peak periods. The reports I have seen are that the potable water and sanitary sewer systems need upgrading/expansion. I think just as important is overall interior square footage for visitors.

On the rare occasions I have visited the summit, there is always a line for filling water bottles and major line for the restrooms. I typically am a fair weather hiker to the summit during the summer and fall season and the building interior is busy but tolerable as more visitors tend to be spread outside as well as inside. I have heard from several folks that when the weather is nice at the base but not so nice on the summit due to clouds or wind, that the building interior is packed to the point that guests arriving by car or trains are unable to go inside as the building is effectively "full". The autoroad is somewhat self limiting as they manage the traffic to the summit from the base of the mountain to maximize the limited parking available. They do use multi passenger vans with smaller capacity than the cog passenger cars but the vans are a small portion of the auto road traffic. Effectively barring more summit parking or a shift to large mix of vans the autoroad is on a much slower growth curve. The Cog on the other hand has plenty of parking spaces down at the bottom of the mountain and with the new biodiesel blend electromotive cogs has put the ridership on a steep growth curve. There are claims that the cog is going to be adding new switches and sidings to increase the potential ridership and a complete 2nd track could ultimately be built. The cogs approach to date has been it is up to someone else to deal with the issues on the summit and if the Cog dies not like the solution they will build their own facility. As the interview with the manager of the autoroad politely indicated, the past management approach at the summit has been collaborative but has shifted of late due to the Cog not playing nice.

Generally the time to study something is early as any solutions are going to be glacially slow from the state especially if they needs funding. My guess is have the state add a second level to the State building? Alternatively extend the building counterclockwise to the west. Either one will raise heck with the profile of the summit and possibly the cog and radio operations. The alternative is ration the access. Whitewater rafting firms in Maine have to buy slots on popular rivers at popular times and expect the cog and autoroad could bid on how many guests they could have at the summit at any given peak time. Hikers would be a wildcard. I expect both the cog and the autoroad would be very unhappy about having to bid for slots but the vast majority of the usage are their guests and to date they expect the state to fund the improvements to deal with ever increasing volume.

 

[SpencerVT]

I wonder if the State has ever looked into Mt Monadnock? - which makes the crowding on Washington pale in comparison. The last time I did Mount Monadnock the trail traffic looked like a massive parade.

 

[JoshandBaron]

I wonder if the State has ever looked into Mt Monadnock? - which makes the crowding on Washington pale in comparison. The last time I did Mount Monadnock the trail traffic looked like a massive parade.

Sounds like Ammo or anything from Pinkham on any given day.

According to the state, Monadnock sees about 95k visitors a year, not even a third of what Washington sees at over 300k.

 

[Mike P.]

I suspect Peakbagger is correct, it is a water and sewer, along with a fire code/max capacity issue on days when it is very cold up there but warm below.

Josh, do you where the State of NH got those numbers? Is that paid riders for the road and cog Vs. people who pay at the Monadnock State Park lot? Both are crowded, however over different areas. Monadnock has a tiny somewhat pointy peak in comparison to Washington. The parking lot on Washington alone would take up a bunch of space if they had a road up Monadnock. I've been up Monadnock over 20 times and have paid in the main lot twice, once with scouts as we camped there, and the halfway house once or twice because I forgot they charge to park there in summer.

On Washington, if I am 1/10 or two off the summit, while my view may not be 360, I'm still high enough to enjoy it and think of it as a nice place to eat. (after summitting, not saying that coming close is good enough for peakbagging, but if just out for a walk above treeline it would be) On Monadnock, depending on the trail up, my view might be 180 degrees or 220 degrees but there is a pointy area blocking my view.

I suspect, unless they are estimating, they are under counting hikers on Monadnock who come up Pumpelly and other trails that to pay a parking fee.

 

[SpencerVT]

Sounds like Ammo or anything from Pinkham on any given day.

According to the state, Monadnock sees about 95k visitors a year, not even a third of what Washington sees at over 300k.

This is not the information I have. Monadnock is, staggeringly, the most climbed mountain in the WORLD (that does not have a road [like Mt Fuji], or is not a mountain for religious purposes like certain temple mounts in China). The information I have always read and been told is that Monadnock destroys all other mountains in terms of numbers of users.

 

[Tom_Murphy]

This is not the information I have. Monadnock is, staggeringly, the most climbed mountain in the WORLD (that does not have a road [like Mt Fuji], or is not a mountain for religious purposes like certain temple mounts in China). The information I have always read and been told is that Monadnock destroys all other mountains in terms of numbers of users.

Caveat: I love Mt. Monadnock in all four seasons. The crowds don't bother me at all since I don't got to Monadnock expecting solitude.

I agree that Monadnock was marketed as the most climbed mountain in the world without a road. I don't find that claim on the State website any longer.

But there are significant difference between tMonadnock and Washington that make any comparisons between their capacities invalid.

Everyone on the Monadnock summit has to hike to get there. The Washington summit has the autoroad and the cog population. So while Monadnock probably has many more unprepared hikers than Washington. Washington has many many more unprepared visitors.

As peakbagger said, the Washington summit facilities were not designed for the volume of people using the summit who are expecting to be able to go into a sheltered environment and get food and drink. Visitors on Monadnock are not expecting access to shelter, water or toilet facilities at the summit.

 

[JoshandBaron]

This is not the information I have. Monadnock is, staggeringly, the most climbed mountain in the WORLD (that does not have a road [like Mt Fuji], or is not a mountain for religious purposes like certain temple mounts in China). The information I have always read and been told is that Monadnock destroys all other mountains in terms of numbers of users.

If you have other numbers I would love to see them. Mine come from the State Master Plan for Monadnock and Pelchat for Washington.

http://www.nhstateparks.org/uploads/pdf/monadnockmasterplanFINAL.pdf

https://www.nhstateparks.org/uploads/pdf/MWC-Vision Session-meeting-notes-121313.pdf

 

[nartreb]

Monadnock is, staggeringly, the most climbed mountain in the WORLD (that does not have a road [like Mt Fuji], or is not a mountain for religious purposes like certain temple mounts in China)...I have always read and been told is that Monadnock destroys all other mountains in terms of numbers of users.

No, no no. First off, that's some ridiculous cherry-picking. Why would you not count a religious hiker? A couple of those temple mounts in China see over a MILLION hikers yearly. Fuji-San (300,000 hikers a year) still rises 1300m (4265ft - a lot higher than Monadnock) from the highest point reachable by road (and many hikers use the other routes, because the mountain is so crowded). If the roads on Fuji are disqualifying, what about the park entrance road on Monadnock?

This is a difficult game because many popular peaks do not have official numbers. Some popular peaks do have permit systems, e.g. Hauyna Picchu -- I didn't find out how many permits actually issued, but the peak probably sees over 100,000 hikers yearly, assuming they approach their daily quota on 2/3 of days. Whatever the exact number, it's clear that Monadnock isn't "destroying" the numbers - and the numbers would be a LOT higher without the permit system. (Macchu Picchu, at the foot of Hauynu Picchu, gets over a million visitors yearly.)

Other peaks are in a park or other area that tracks total visitors. Zion national park gets over 4 million visits a year; if 5% of visitors hike Angel's Landing, that's 200,000. Mont St Michel sees 3 million visitors a year; not all go to the top but a large proportion do. [There are roads on the Mont, but only local inhabitants are allowed to drive on them, which is often impossible due to pedestrians.]

Of course you also have to define "Mountain", otherwise you've got Beacon Hill with a few million pedestrian visits yearly.