Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 38 of 38

Thread: Cog claims you need to pay to cross the tracks

  1. #31
    Senior Member jniehof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Dover,NH
    Posts
    1,027
    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.

  2. #32
    Moderator bikehikeskifish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    5,475
    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
    Bike, Hike, Ski, Sleep. Eat, Fish, Repeat.

  3. #33
    Senior Member richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    manchester nh
    Posts
    279
    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. Bullshit.

  4. #34
    Senior Member DayTrip's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Woodstock, CT
    Posts
    2,260
    Quote Originally Posted by alexmtn View Post
    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.
    NH 48 4k: 48/48; NH W48k: 46/48; NY 46: 5/46

  5. #35
    Senior Member dug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Xanadu
    Posts
    1,906
    Quote Originally Posted by richard View Post
    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. Bullshit.
    I believe that's called trespassing in many areas.

  6. #36
    Senior Member richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    manchester nh
    Posts
    279
    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 ).
    Last edited by richard; 12-05-2018 at 08:55 AM.

  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Gorham NH
    Posts
    5,471
    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.

  8. #38
    Senior Member skiguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Center Conway, NH
    Posts
    2,249
    Quote Originally Posted by DayTrip View Post
    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.
    "I'm getting up and going to work everyday and I am stoked. That does not suck!"__Shane McConkey

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •