White Mountain Parking Fee Changes for 2010

[yvon]

The proposed fee changes are to take effect January 1, 2010.

The proposed fee for 2010

Take this from http://www.adkhighpeaks.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10120&referrerid=142

 

[MichaelJ]

Regrettably, this is old news. "Comments must be received by August 1, 2009."

I neither like the idea of a fee and reservation process for the Cabot Cabin (you'll never have mixed company up there, it will likely be empty most of the time), nor do see why all the campsites on Gale River Rd, Haystack Rd, and Cherry Mountain Rd should be free.

 

[TEO]

nor do see why all the campsites on Gale River Rd, Haystack Rd, and Cherry Mountain Rd should be free.

The WMNF is merely falling into compliance with the FLREA for those sites. As I've pointed out before, it is illegal to charge fees for those sites & similar, as they do not have the minimum required amenities. Still, the list remains too short, and the fee program immoral.

 

[TDawg]

nor do see why all the campsites on Gale River Rd, Haystack Rd, and Cherry Mountain Rd should be free.

Is there a presently a charge for the Tripoli Rd. sites? If so, why not make those free too?

 

[RoySwkr]

This is the request for comments, not the implementation order. Was it approved in exactly this form?

Is there a presently a charge for the Tripoli Rd. sites? If so, why not make those free too?

They are cheap midweek, and expensive weekends.

Because they provide amenities such as outhouses and dumpsters.

 

[yvon]

This is the request for comments, not the implementation order. Was it approved in exactly this form?

I would like to know that also.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Bridge removal doesn't come cheaply.

 

[The Hikers]

Bridge removal doesn't come cheaply.

Nor does cannister removal

 

[TDawg]

Because they provide amenities such as outhouses and dumpsters.

Where are those, Russell Pond and Osceola Vista? So you gotta drive to there to go #2? All the sites I've seen on Tripoli are lucky to have a fire ring.

Bridge removal doesn't come cheaply.

...and signage from Owls Head...?

Nor does cannister removal

Or brand new LEED certified headquarters!! Yay, for big brother!!

 

[RoySwkr]

Where are those, Russell Pond and Osceola Vista? So you gotta drive to there to go #2? All the sites I've seen on Tripoli are lucky to have a fire ring.

There were several scattered porta-potties and a huge cluster of dumpsters between the contact station and the notch when I last drove Tripoli Road in July.

 

[forestgnome]

As with most collectivist endevours, the results mostly suck for most.

One person's "improvements" are another's assault on the environment.

The path to Sabaday Falls has been "improved" with fee revenues. I would never choose these "improvements", yet I'm forced to help finance them.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

http://www.fs.fed.us/passespermits/fee-legislation-text.shtml#two, Section 3(f) RECREATION FEE AUTHORITY.

(f) Standard Amenity Recreation Fee.--Except as limited by subsection (d), the Secretary may charge a standard amenity recreation fee for Federal recreational lands and waters under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, or the Forest Service, but only at the following:

(4) An area--

(A) that provides significant opportunities for outdoor recreation;

(B) that has substantial Federal investments;

(C) where fees can be efficiently collected; and

(D) that contains all of the following amenities:

(i) Designated developed parking.

(ii) A permanent toilet facility.

(iii) A permanent trash receptacle.

(iv) Interpretive sign, exhibit, or kiosk.

(v) Picnic tables.

(vi) Security services.

How many fee-parking areas contain all six of the required elements? No toilet facility, perm or temp, at 19MBT for example. I don't recall one at the Hancock / hairpin lot either. Offhand, pretty much only Lincoln Woods and Mt. Clinton qualify... although I don't know about "security services" and they may or may not have picnic tables.

I agree with Forest Gnome.

Tim

 

[arghman]

Tim: thanks for posting. I don't remember seeing picnic tables at the fee trailheads.

 

[--M.]

I have generally subscribed to the idea of paying my three bucks toward a non-bushwhacked hike (parking area, occasional toilet, less-than-onerous fee, why not help pay one's way?).

The trend lately (higher fees for fewer services), however, has me reconsidering. Haven't made up my mind yet, but here's a question:

Is non-payment prosecuted in any way? Is it possible to use these areas and not get dinged for it? Enforcement (ticketing, towing, big yellow boot on the wheel) adds expense and hassle, but an empty fee tube in a lot full of cars sends a tidy political message.

I know there are several participants here who have claimed over the years that they don't pay the fees as a political message. If I felt that the government was moving in a direction I didn't approve, I might consider usage without fee-payment as a method of protest, to say nothing of saving my five bucks for other use. Having to endure a collection process, however, would impact my convenience and would cost The People money, thereby muddying the message.

Can those who regularly refuse to pay speak to this?

--Mike.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

How can they legally charge when the law clearly says they must have all 6 amenities? And what is the deal with security? I mean 19MBT has a high reported breakin rate, no picnic tables, no restroom. I don't know about trash... but at best they are at 50% compliance... I wonder if they don't protest for fear of a court challenge?

I just buy a pass so I don't have to think about it.

Tim

 

[alpino]

I don't mind paying a parking fee if it helps defray the cost of maintanence, even if I don't always agree with certain specific projects. But $30 to stay at Cabot Cabin seems a bit excessive. I don't know who maintains other facilities, but I believe the Boy Scouts from Jefferson, NH maintain Cabot Cabin. So why should the Forest Service get $30/night? For that price I hope they have at least taken care of the mice in the ceiling.

 

[Mike P.]

So apparently parking in Franconia & C-Notch these past two months when my past was expired is a good thing. I'll pick up my annual pass in the next couple of weeks at $20. and it will be good until 12/2010. I wish I could say I planned it that way but it was luck.

 

[MichaelJ]

So apparently parking in Franconia & C-Notch these past two months when my past was expired is a good thing.

Depending on where exactly you were. Both notches have state parks encompassing many of the parking areas, which most definitely do not ever require USFS parking stickers.

 

[Mike P.]

Depending on where exactly you were. Both notches have state parks encompassing many of the parking areas, which most definitely do not ever require USFS parking stickers.

My last pass expired in October so I wa sin the free lots. The next hike should be in a pay lot. (likely Cabot)

 

[RoySwkr]

How many fee-parking areas contain all six of the required elements? No toilet facility, perm or temp, at 19MBT for example.

In my comments on this proposal, I specifically said 19MB should be removed from the list due to lack of amenities.

I have a WMNF press release saying that fees would be removed from Kinsman Notch and Hancock Overlook, but they weren't. On the other hand, they added an outhouse and trashcan at Kinsman Notch.

While I try not to pay as a political statement, this means not parking at fee areas and walking such as from a pulloff .3 miles below Hancock Overlook. I pay if I park at a fee lot, except for cases like Gale River last month when the fee slot was taped over. The FS occasionally places "Invitation to Pay" envelopes when people in lots don't pay, but I'm not sure if they prosecute scofflaws in WMNF like they do elsewhere.