Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 48 of 48

Thread: Proposed $5 entrance fee for Mt Washington Summit Building

  1. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Bethlehem, NH
    Posts
    441
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike P. View Post
    That is good news and nice to know in a world that seems less personal everyday that a long term employee with a White Mountain family pedigree is keeping the family tradition.
    A nice thing I saw working in NH State Parks was yes, someone could work their way up through the ranks with dedication and hard work.

    I think the fee would have been too difficult to manage there, and inappropriate for the location with a facility for the public that serves mainly as shelter and relief in a decidedly harsh setting. I worked at a NH state park for years with a 'Checkpoint Charlie' toll booth limiting entry and requiring a service charge before you reach the trailhead parking and toilets. We were instructed to not give maps or let people park and use the toilets unless they paid the service charge, since the philosophy was that the toilets were one of the services you needed to be paying for. We really struggled with this as staff because it was mean-spirited and quite inappropriate, and only led to cars spinning around the tollbooth and stopping down the park driveway for less than modest relief, and was just really bad PR. So staff decided to put a time framework on the service charge requirement, and serve the public need more appropriately by saying along the lines of "...well we have a per person service charge to use the park, but if you need to just stretch your legs and relieve yourself in the restrooms, you can use the park for 15 minutes or so without paying....". This most often led to the persons usually deciding to stay a little longer and coming back to the booth to pay for a little walk that was short of the big hike we were supposedly charging for the use of the facilities/resource.
    In the case of Mt. Wash it would be sad to see the public seeking relief denied entry at the Sherman Adams building due to a fee requirement. The whole point of the aggressive retail/food service operation is to help float the operational costs of the park along with the communications leases with one goal to keep the facility open to the public without a fee. Now you have 2 businesses relying heavily on the facilities to support their customers experience, with only one of them participating on the financial agreement, but this heavy use and its impact is largely driven by those businesses. The problem is obvious, and the attitude of some is concerning. I would think a business owner should feel irresponsible if they have not provided basic toilet facilities to their customers throughout the experience the business owner is providing, whether through a partnership with the owner of a facility they are arriving at, or provide it with your own resources.
    I have not followed every detail in these discussions between the players, but my guess is that one of them is saying/thinking …well then the hikers should be paying too…but I don’t see this at all as the same as businesses bringing visitors and the business having to step up and pay. The world is full of imperfect funding models, just think of the Pittman – Robertson Act Pittman–Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act - Wikipedia. We all figured the whole reason Presby proposed his hotel was only to make it seem more palatable for him to eventually build a new summit building with hotel as a lessor evil.

  2. #47
    Senior Member TCD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,940
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew View Post
    I worked at a NH state park for years with a 'Checkpoint Charlie' toll booth limiting entry and requiring a service charge before you reach the trailhead parking and toilets. We were instructed to not give maps or let people park and use the toilets unless they paid the service charge, since the philosophy was that the toilets were one of the services you needed to be paying for. We really struggled with this as staff because it was mean-spirited and quite inappropriate, and only led to cars spinning around the tollbooth and stopping down the park driveway for less than modest relief...
    In answer to an earlier question, this is exactly the behavior that I expect such fees to incentivize. It's good that the new "poop fee" is not happening, at least for now. REALLY dumb idea.

  3. #48
    Member JToll's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    52
    I view the summit of Mt Washington more like the I-93 rest areas in Hooksett as opposed to a state park. In Hooksett the bathrooms are free, but I can pay for food if I want.
    NH 4K: 48/48, VT 4K: 5/5, NY 4K: 2/46

Posting Permissions

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